AAR and AA50, 'A speedy game' Any tips..?



  • I don’t know if this is really the topic to be discussing this under or not, and I don’t normally use variant house rules…in fact the only house rule I’ve used to date is the Bid and TTL (just with AAR, I have only tried this turn sequence with AA50) .  And I haven’t had the time to look over ALL of the rules/topics/threads about this set of rules YET…

    But…

    IL
    your supposed to attack individually even if you play the turns together.

    What do you mean by attack individually?

    I figure there’s two different ways to do this; see Example A and Example B below.

    Example A:
    Germany and Italy are attacking Russia.
    First
    Germany attacks (in turn order per the original rules)
    Russia assigns their casualties on the battle board
    Russia defends (and can only hit attacking German units)
    Germany and Russia removes all their casualties from the battle board

    THAN…IF Russia still has defending units…
    Italy attacks
    Russia assigns their casualties on the battle board
    Russia defends (and can only hit attacking Italian units)
    Italy and Russia remove all their casualties from the battle board

    THAN…IF Russia still has defending units and IF Germany still has attacking units…
    Germany attacks
    Russia assigns their casualties on the battle board
    Russia defends
    Germany and Russia remove all casualties from the battle board

    BUT…IF Russia still has defending units but Germany doesn’t have attacking units…

    THAN…Italy attacks IF they still have attacking units…
    Italy attacks
    Russia assigns their casualties on the battle board
    Russia defends
    Italy and Russia remove all casualties from the battle board

    BUT…IF Russia still has defending units but Germany & Italy don’t have attacking units…

    THAN…Russia wins the battle and retains control of the territory/sea zone.

    IF/WHEN Russia has no defending units but Germany and/or Italy still have attacking units…

    THAN…the Axis wins the battle and gains control of the territory/sea zone.

    The power that eliminates the last defending unit in a round of battle is the power that captures and gains control of the territory.

    OR;
    Example B: Germany and Italy are attacking Russia.
    First
    Germany attacks (in turn order per the original rules)
    Russia assigns their casualties on the battle board
    Russia defends (and can only hit attacking German units)
    Germany and Russia remove all casualties from the battle board AND they start another round of combat between just the two of them.

    THAN…IF/WHEN Russia has no more defending units but Germany still has attacking units than Germany wins the battle and gains control of the territory/sea zone and than the Italian units that moved into that territory/sea zone during the combat move just stay in the territory that Germany just captured.

    BUT…IF/WHEN Russia still has defending units but Germany doesn’t have attacking units left
    than….
    Italy attacks
    Russia assigns their casualties on the battle board
    Russia defends (and can only hit attacking Italian units)
    Italy and Russia remove all casualties from the battle board AND they start another round of combat between just the two of them.

    THAN…IF/WHEN Russia has no more defending units but Italy still has attacking units than Italy wins the battle and gains control of the territory/sea zone.

    BUT…IF/WHEN Russia still has defending units but (Germany &) Italy don’t have attacking units left…

    THAN…Russia wins the battle and retains control of the territory/sea zone.

    Did you catch all that? Mind numbing I know… but that s what happens to me when I start discussing A&A and  “Only slightly well less known is never match wits with a Sicilian when death is on the line…Ahh HA…HAHAHA HAHA”…(quote from the princes bride…in case you were wondering what that was all about.)

    In a nut shell; in Example A the Germans and Italians attack independently in a cyclic order/way and in example B they attack independently in turn order.

    And also, regardless of which Example we should be playing by (according to the “official rules”); if the attackers ever decided to retreat, neither Germany nor Italy could do so until they had each done at least one round of combat.  But they would retreat separately and they both wouldn’t need to retreat simply because one of them decided to retreat. Correct?

    I personally like Example A Best.  It sounds like it might play out a little more “realistic”.  In “joint operations” over large areas (like the territories/sea zones in the game appear to be) powers would be attacking at the same time.  It doesn’t make sense to me to have Germany fight to the last unit or till they retreat before the Italians would even get a unit shot at.  I just don’t see powers in joint operations “waiting” to attack until their ally was finished attacking.  They would/ should most likely be attacking at the “same time”.  Having powers attack cyclically mimics that idea pretty well (IMO).

    Plus, if you are playing with the rule you’ve come up with that defenders can retreat after a round of combat it would make sense also that they would not be able to retreat until both Germany and Italy had a chance to fire at them.  In example B if Russia couldn’t retreat until Italy had a chance to attack, they would have to wait till Germany was out of attacking units and until after Italy had a chance to make at least one attack; Russia could be long dead by than making the need to retreat pointless…since they would already be dead.

    I don’t know what the “official” rules are concerning the combat turn for this variant set of rules (since the copy I have is not very clear about it); but after more thought I am probably going to stick with using Example A for the combat from now on.  It just makes more sense to me to have the attacking powers attack independently compared to the “joint attacks” that I did over the weekend, but example B just feels/sounds like it would make the powers “independent attacks” TOO independent; totally eliminating any FEELING of  “joint offensives” (something about this set of rules that really intrigued me.)



  • I just played a 6 player 1942 game with combined turns and option B that Builder Chris refers to worked pretty well, especially since it is simpler than option A.

    Also, we bid 20 IPCs to the allied team to offset the advantage gained by Italy and Germany in going before Russia and England.  The allies were happy with this bid.  However, England did lose its navy and Russia lost their archangel factory fairly quickly.  I wasn’t paying much attention because I was playing Japan and my front was not affected by the new turn order.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    what was the turn order again?



  • We had all three axis countries go at once followed by the allied countries, which went fairly fast (~15 minutes a turn) since each country had a player.  I believe the 1942 setup initially goes Japan, Russia, Germany, UK, Italy, and finally US.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    ok yes thats the AARHE turn sequence. good to know



  • I think I figured it out.

    Keep everything as is it is with each side taking it’s turn together, but start the game off with UK receiving a free IC in India.  This makes up for the deficiency of losing it’s Navy (replacing the extra lost BB+TRN) and Egypt (with is really an inf or two).  This should balance the game, as well as making the Pacific more interesting.



  • Anyway,
    we have been using this for the last year and its been great fun to see everyone in action at once.  And on the team play, each attacking the same territory gives you the feel of an alliance, even though you attacked seperately like chris Ex B.
      I had friends who did not really want to play, cause it took too long in between turns and now those same guys are big proponents of getting together for games.
      I mentioned this over at Larry Harris site.  Larry seemed curious, but thought it would favor the Allies.  I like, Moses idea of an Indian factory, interesting, may propose it for the next game.  The time savings has been so great and the win lose record so even, we thought whatever balance issues happened would be minor.  Moses argument and Imperious have me thinking, thanks.



  • I would just like to suggest giving this program a try, it has helped me and my friends play games much quicker ( 15 -20 minutes a turn).  It makes the game go much more efficiently.  Its available for download at : http://sites.google.com/site/dkat106inc/axis-and-allies-banker

    Try it out I promise it will make game play more fun and efficient!



  • Cool program!  I’ll try it out the next time I’m with friends.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 10
  • 48
  • 5
  • 20
  • 2
  • 2
  • 3
  • 9
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

47
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts