AA50 on Steroids!

So the rules me and my crew have been using for the last 5 or 6 years have worked for us so far.
Atomic bombs are a two part tech: require both heavy bombers and atomic bomb its self. Its a time consuming and expensive proccess. Although it is not listed here we have contemplated adding resource requirment for radioactive materials. Listed bellow is how our text appears in weapons and development:

*Enables nuclear Bombs. It costs 5 IPCs to build each atomic bomb. Must be loaded at an airfield aboard a Heavy Bomber. An atomic
bomb run can only be shot at by Anti aircraft fire. Each bomb may be used in one of 3 ways.

Infrastructure target: automatically destroy a grey infrastructure target of your choosing as well as roll a D-6 to decide
how many enemy units die. Strategic Nuclear Bombing: roll a d-10 to decide IPC property value to be destroyed and a d-6 to decide how many
enemy units die. The property value will increase by 1 IPC per turn until it is returned to its starting value. Naval Bombing: Automatically destroy your primary target, regardless of hit points; also roll a d-6 to decide how many
ships are destroyed. You may not damage ships.

(Explanations not in text)
.Bomb is destroyed from its single use
.no limit on bomb stockpile or building
.one bomb per heavy bomber
.loading a bomb consumes bomber movment for that round
.bombs can only be loaded at airfields
. a stategicly nuked territory can never deplete value below zero. Every following round its value will climb by 1ipc value per round until it reaches its original value

I would prefer simply increasing the starting forces in India (and Australia if needed) and allowing UK to build his own IC. Also, If you are playing with the improved techs, UK has the opportunity to directly attempt improved factories. This would improve the defensive qualities of India.

Also just on the side. Has anyone effectively used Australia Industry for UK in AA50? I tried it once, and it helped me keep the rich islands around Australia.

Your AA50 Strategic link is broken.

@azimuth Wow, this map is absolutely glorious. While I’m just as monolingual as most of my American brethren and would prefer it in English, the French is totally legible/guessable to me, and it’s such an awesome visual reminder of the internationality of the war. The detail here is phenomenal. Did you ever print it up? I have to see pictures of it in play! What about all of the cosmetic-only additions; do you find them visually distracting during actual play? To me this is on par with some of the other visually outstanding work that I would probably print more to hang as a piece of art than as a game board.

@barnee
Thank you very much
I appreciate.
Tasos

@Cmdr:

Actually, i think I’d like it better for Artillery, not Armor.

Artillery without infantry support - Defend @ 2.
Artillery with infantry support - Defend @ 3.

Then again, I like changing Artillery to a 2/1 unit, instead of 2/2.  (attack/defend.)  I mean common, those 88’s on defense have to fire into their own ranks, right?  One would hope the cannoneers would be EXTRA careful lining up those shots!

Good call. Totally agree with:
Artillery without infantry support - Defend @ 1.
Artillery with infantry support - Defend @ 2.

But I’d also keep Armour without infantry support - Defend @ 2

I do use a tech to represent ASW, but that can be easily made from a rider on “shipyards” technology as you have.

Also, a convoy zone can be as simple as placing a token on the sea zone from a list for each player. Thats not ‘advanced’ at all. Sea zones are not advanced idea and used in AAE and AAP. MY only change is the IPC they represent is now represented by the new occupier should the attached income now be under new control.

@vodot said in [AA50 & AA42.2] Fixed Cost Techs + Tech Expansion:

This is a work in progress, but I’m putting it out here for ideas and feedback if anyone is interested in geeking out on something like this.

This is an expanded list of techs with fixed costs (no more die rolls) that would simply come into effect immediately (unless otherwise specified) for the cost shown. Some of these have a cost of 5 IPCs, with the intention of simply enabling what are essentially house rules/new units (Mechanized Infantry, Cheaper Naval units, rudimentary dogfight rules, etc.) while allowing players with no interest/need for them to ‘opt out’ and save the 5 IPCs. I’ll be using this list for my next solo game and will be making adjustments.

Note: The ‘Turkish Pact’ tech is designed for games where the Turkish Straits begin the game closed (via house rule), but also works for games where the straits start open as per OOB rules (in which case, upon the development of ‘Turkish Pact’ they would cease to be a special case of “Always Open” straits and revert to the normal OOB straits rules (closed to units unfriendly to the controller of Turkey).

Fixed_cost_Tech_v2.xls

SIR, THIS IS PURE GOLD! 🙂

@variable:

It doesn’t make things any more difficult for the allies there. It just becomes a balanced trade off. If the allies decide to put resources into it, there is a payoff. If the axis decides to challenge it, the allies end up with an expensive meat grinder that may happen anyway.

Exactly.

I like it.