Alternate Setup

To add some diversity and other strategies to winning.

21 points to win  (Axis pts/Allied pts)  Axis starts with 9  Allied starts with 15

2/4 Germany - Berlin
2/2 Southern Italy - Rome
1/1 Norway
1/1 Northern Italy
1/2 Poland - Warsaw
2/2 Eastern US - Washington
3/2 United Kingdom - London
2/2 Russia - Moscow
2/1 France - Paris
2/1 Egypt - Cairo

1/1 Novgorod - Leningrad
2/1 Ontario - Ottawa
1/1 Volgograd - Stalingrad
1/1 Union of South Africa
1/2 Suez Canal
2/1 Gibraltar
1/1 Greece
2/1 Iraq & Persia
2/1 Libya & Malta
1/0 Axis units in S. America
1/0 No Russians W of Kar/Ukr
0/1 No Axis units in Africa
1/0 Strict Neutrals in place
1/0 No US in France & Germany

Oh cool, we’re back! For a few days there I wasn’t able to get the site up.

I like the idea of a round 0 build up, but I think the implementation needs more work.

The first issue I’m anticipating is just sheer amount of time it would take to go around the table piece for piece. Beyond that you also have the issue of players matching each other (out in the open) by choosing to place all their TUV in just a few hot spots, at the expense of everywhere else. And finally, without any limits or caps for individual territories or sea zones you will likely see a ton of front line units, placed just outside the range of any opening attacks.

My suggestion would be to have more structure to the zero round, more rules defining where the units can be placed, or perhaps some kind of initiative role to determine the sequence in which they are placed.

One approach might be to just scale back the number of units or ipcs that are included in this process. So instead of taking all the starting TUV and putting that in a tray, you might just use a portion of the total, or perhaps instead allow players to add some smaller amount of TUV on top of the normal starting totals. Not only would that make things faster, it would also provide some much needed structure to the set up process.

Particularly with sea zones, instead of a race to be the first to occupy the contested ones (that border multiple originally controlled territories), you could restrict where naval units can be added to just those sea zones that already have a ship etc. Same deal with land.

You might make it a secret placement only revealed after everyone has recorded all their placements. Or you could break it down by unit type, first bases then inf then tanks then fighters then ships etc.

For ease of use, the more this zero round looked like a bid the easier it would be to implement. Although in this case it would be like a bid for all sides.

Again I like the idea a lot, I just think it needs more polish.

In a game without bids, the med is still interesting in 50% of my games, and nearly all games I have ever played involve Taranto. Granted, 50% is not 100%, but still, it happens pretty often. In a game without bids, the Med can be, and often is, simply more fun and more interesting. I’m not saying no Allied help, mind you, just not a bidding system (I have been recently playing with +10 IPCs/turn -> USA).

In a game with bids, those bids often put a UK sub there to make Taranto nigh un-losable, and even an extra Inf in Alexandria/Egypt on top of that, and yeah, I can see how that pretty much ends the intrigue.

I finally found a different HR intended to fix Subs vs planes:
@deslock:

IMO, subs are too weak if they can’t be used as defending fodder (I know some other user agree as I read posts complaining about this).  To illustrate, suppose USA approaches Japan with an invasion force and Japan strikes first:

Japan (attacker):
8 ftr
2 bmb

USA (defender):
2 CV
4 ftr
8 sub
2 dd
4 trn

The rules are fairly clear that in this battle the USA can’t choose to take subs as losses, which means Japan has a ~90% chance of victory (killing everything except for the subs).  I’m contemplating a house rule that states:

Defending subs can be hit by any air/sea units regardless of whether or not an attacking DD is present.  However, if no enemy DD is present, the subs may submerge before any rolling.  If subs attack and no defending DD is present, then defending air units can’t hit subs (even when they’re on the surface).

(I believe that the last two sentences are how it already works, but I included them with the house rule for clarity)

This way subs’ current capabilities are preserved, but they can now be used as defending fodder. Does that seem reasonable to the more experienced players here or does it throw off the game mechanics? (I’ve only played AA50 a couple times)

And there is also this thread about how to limit the DDs vs Subs ratio (same problem):
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6367

@Baron:

It is intended to be played with the starting board.

Fg A2D2M4C8, 1 hit, all hit destroy an enemy plane first, if there is any.
Give +1A/D to any TcB paired with.

TacB A2D3M4C10, 1 hit, gain +1 A/D when paired 1:1 with any Fg or Tank.
Can do a Tactical bombing raid vs AB and NB.

Now, the Fleet Carrier is A0D2M2C16, 2 hits, can now hold up to 3 planes.

This point is for balancing vs OOB full carrier with 2 planes:
2 Fgs= A6D8C20 (.7pt/IPC)  / 1 Fg+1TcB= A7D7C21 (.67pt/IPC)

3 TcBs= A6D9C30 (.5pt/IPC)
2 TcBs + 1 Fg = A7D9C28 (.57pt/IPC), but with Air Supremacy can rise to A10D10C28 (.71pt/IPC)
1TcB+2 Fgs= A7D8C26 (.58pt/IPC), but with Air Supremacy can rise to A8D8C26 (.62pt/IPC)
3 Fgs= A6D6C24 (.5pt/IPC)

There is probably some changes to compensate for the weaker planes units.
For instance, 1 CV with 1 Fg and 1 TcB should be added an additional Fg on board.
You can also put on board a Fleet Carrier 1 TcB or 1 Fg when there is 1 plane on a CV and at least 1 Fg or TcB in a Naval Base nearby.

Since in this HR TacB gets the best defensive value, it should be better to put on the initial board a TcB instead of an OOB Fg and put a Fg instead of a TacB.

@Baron:

I found this interesting questions:
It happens that I forget this situation in this alternate Sub Warfare.
I would try to provide a specific rules when I will find if it falls in the sub alone category (historical POV: subs are not protecting scrambling planes) or the subs+warships (game mechanics POV: there is another different friendly unit in the SZ) category:

@ShadowHAwk:

What would happen in this situation.

Transports dont move but load and then unload from the same SZ.
A hostile submarine is available in the SZ as well as a friendly destroyer and some planes. ( so you can load )
Now defender scrambles 1 fighter and hits the destroyer.
Attacker kills the fighter but fails to destroy the sub.

As we are in combat and the planes cant hit the sub and the sub cant hit the planes it is a stalemate there.
You cannot unload because there is still sea combat going on.
You cannot retreat because to retreat you have to move to a zone that your naval was comming from which is this SZ.

Will the transports be defenseless ?? They cant run and the sub cant die.

Since it is clear that the defender have the choice to scramble planes or not, this situation will be put in the Subs with warships. I added the correction in the initial post.
I rationalize it this way: subs are mobilized to stop invasion and the amphib. assault so, instead fleeing any contact with ennemy’s ship, they are seeking them instead. Hence, no need to go on Air Search Patrol to find defending subs.

So, ennemy’s planes can destroy subs even if there is no DD on their side. See the opening post.

There are both on Larry Harris’ site IIRC.

These are just proposed for now, the goal is to reduce the incentive of a J1 DOW and to reduce incentive of an India crush, promoting a more global game.

Placement changes:

Removal of UK BB and 2 transports in SZ 37, replaced with a cruiser. Addition of a UK BB and 1 transport in SZ 39
Reason: Slow down UK DEI expansion and decrease J1 DOW incentive. Replacement of US bomber at Philippines with tac fighter.
Reason: increase SZ defense, also makes it harder to retreat the plane. Replacement of US transport with a destroyer in SZ 26
Reason: reduce dicey J1 pearl grab and sneaky sub J1 attack Addition of Minor IC to Manchuria
Reason: allow japan more build slots

NO changes
Removal of UK Kwangtung & Malaya NO, want to replace it with something but unsure of what.

ANZAC occupation of original jap territory to be for every round.

Replacement of US NO of Phi, to 3 of the following: Phi, Wake, Midway, Pearl.

Replacement of US NO of Iwo and Oki to 2 of the following: Iwo, Oki, Carolinas.

Replacement of Japan Haw NO to any 1 of the following: Haw, Mid, Wake.

Any thoughts.