I prefer simplicity. I prefer to have them operate like minor ICs except their bonus is one research die per turn instead of producing units. (when not damaged). I’m okay with a cap of 1 tech per turn. I’ll pass on the captured technology raid rule. I think having your enemy capture your research facility (and the free roll each turn after that) is reward enough.
Having them operate like minor ICs let’s you build them on 2 iPc territories, which is necessary if someone like Anzac hopes to ever acquire any technology.
Overall it’s a great concept.
You chose a bad example, as the in “small” battle, the defender doesnt have an artillery. Get two battles, same unit mix, different size (1inf 1art vs 1inf 1art … 2inf 2art vs 2inf 2art) and see, how both battles are affected same.
Yes but mathematically, a battle with less units will vary in victory percentages then a battle with more units. 1 inf and 1 art vs 1 inf and 1 art will likely be so different as a normal amphibious assault, whereas a 10 inf and 10 art vs 10 inf and 10 art will be dramatically different, because you are channging the dice values for 20 units, where as in the small bale, you are only changing the dice value for 2 units.
That’s why I was on your case about the playtesting…
I completely agree.
Axis & Allies Revised Enhanced
This alternate ruleset is an enhancement of AAR and was developed at the AvalonHill boards. It’s main goal is to optimize the strategic experience of the game utilizing National Advantages, and to reduce repetitive play (same KGF all the time). The game developed itself through more than 3 years of playtesting by the AARe team and finally reached its goals.
Cmdr Jennifer, can you tell us again how long you did testing on your version of the rule-set?
Most of the dev team were gamers who live in Northern Illinois. After the rudiments were put in place, we had a month of online gamers testing it from the four major gaming sites that I know of: DAAK, FOE, AAMC and here. (Note: DAAK players invited were from personal invites since I lost my PW to the DAAK site, actually, it’s been so long since I’ve been there, I dont even know if it is still online or not.)
And you can still make this statement?
So far we, the game developers who adapted the AARe rules to fit in the AA50 rules and map, feel the current rule set is as strong or stronger than the AARe rules were/are.
[Copied from my post in your other thread on this subject, located here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37073.0]
Depicting a single regiment would be problematic in terms of game scale. In general terms, a game on the scale of Global 1940 represents (admittedly in very abstract terms) the actions of units that are mostly the size of army groups and fleets – and, furthermore, of army groups and fleets which have no specific identity other than their nationality. It would be hard to justify saying that one particular regiment-sized unit, with a specific name, ought to be added to the game; by that rationale, there are hundreds of other regiments that could be added too.
The obvious exception to the above principle is the single fighter which represents the Flying Tiger squadron in China…so it’s not an ironclad rule that units smaller than army groups and fleets are never represented in the game. It can be argued, however, that the Flying Tigers are a special case because of their high profile, and because in the game China lacks aviation forces of its own. China doesn’t lack infantry, however, so adding a USMC unit doesn’t bring anything distinctive to China’s forces.
Additionally, Global 1940 has no rules that govern riverine operations – which is understandable, because the game map doesn’t depict any rivers. Even the Saint Lawrence, which is huge in real life, isn’t depicted: on the map, it looks like a strip of land. There are a few lakes depicted, plus a few canals and narrow straights, but no rivers. So a river patrol unit in China would literally have nowhere to go.