Variant: Duoble Starting Units / Double Money

If, instead, you allow US player to simply  built up to 2 Infantry per turn on any Allied chinese territory

That works OK, Baron – I’d prefer to the OOB rules. The problem with building infantry is that it doesn’t create an interesting choice for the US player, and if Japan kills the Flying Tiger on J1 (as it always should without an American bid or a radically intense Russian reinforcement gambit), then China never has any offensive potential no matter how much Japan under-invests there. Right, like let’s say on turn 1 I kill just Szechuan, leaving you with 4 infantry. You build 2 more infantry, now you have 6 infantry. So…so what? I’ve got something like 6 infantry, 2 artillery, and 2 fighters in the region; you don’t have any interesting counter-attacks.

With an IC, America can choose to build infantry (standard play) or something aggressive like a tank or fighter (Chinese gambit) or build nothing at all and save the IPCs for the ocean (Atlantic gambit).

These posts from a past thread on AA guns summarized many AAA’s limitations:

@Vance:

I guess the issue is that AA guns are of equal value to fighters, as Fortress said, but only in terms of defense.

Fighters are expensive units, but are often a good buy because they provide defense, offense, and mobility.

AA guns are all defense, only move 1 space in NCM and have no offense at all.

So while its true that a $5 AA gun has a 50/50 shot at taking out a $10 plane (and yes sometimes they get 2 or even 3 planes, including more expensive tacs or bombers), overall you don’t see people building AA guns very often, if ever. A house rule for AA guns getting something extra like antitank capability would add some extra historical flavour to the game.

@allweneedislove:

like ryguy, i also would like to know why aaguns were changed but still suck.
aaguns were a boring unit that no one purchased. 2nd edition did a good job changing them to behave like a regular unit that can have more than one in the same territory and be taken as casualties. however, they are still boring and a bad purchase.
@Fortress:

Why are we trying to fix something that’s not broken? I laid out the math very specifically. Nobody has refuted it. It literally couldn’t be fairer. They are worth exactly what they should be worth. Where’s the case that there is a problem?…

aaguns are broken and should have been fixed with the 2nd edition revision. they are overpriced.

@Fortress:

….That is absolutely perfect. You can’t improve on that. Literally.

i think you are being disingenuous. you are a better player than what your posts in this thread would have readers believe. you do not purchase aaguns yourself as they are the least flexible and cost efficient unit.

your math works with the framework of a single battle with fighters attacking aaguns. thankfully the game is more than just this one type of battle.
like vance states, they are the unit with the least offense, they are the unit with the least mobility, they only fire if planes are attacking them, they are only used in land battles, they are the 2nd most expensive land unit.

@ryguy:

Part of the problem might be that they are so damn immobile when traveling overseas. Why can’t AA guns move during the combat phase? Would it mess the game up completely? If you capture a territory overland, you can always move the AA gun into that territory during the non-combat phase on the same turn so you are accomplishing the same thing. You cant do that via transports however if the transport was involved during the combat phase. Why cant you just unload the damn AA guns with the attacking force? Why not treat AA guns like tanks/mech infantry/artillery in respect to transports? Why not let the AA guns travel with the attacking force overland during the combat phase?

If were talking in real life terms this might seem weird (Im not a buff on military equipment used in WWII) but it makes them more versatile. You can make it a rule that AA guns cant be chosen as casualties when attacking if you wish, but they definitely cannot shoot at planes when attacking. Theyre just along for the ride. This makes it much easier to transport them overseas without having to purchase separate transports for the non-combat phase. I like mixed arms and this might incorporate AA guns into the mix more often for the Allies.

Im not sure if I like the idea of one IPC AA guns with one shot. I would rather see the current AA gun scheme with a value of 3-4 IPCs with the above rule changes about movement perhaps. If theyre valued under infantry they will get used as fodder more than their original purpose and I dont like that. I still find it strange that AA guns can be chosen as casualties first. Was that rule created just because of the UK and Sea Lion?

@WILD:

Yeah I don’t like how AAA guns are just ignored after the first round of battle, and normally are the first casualty (seems like a flaw). Not sure that they should be able to fire one shot each round afterwords though unless you made it that they only fire 2 shots in the opening round, and one shot each round after that. I also agree that attacking planes should have the option to attack AAA guns directly (maybe AAA is taken as a casualty if air units roll a 1?), and/or can retreat after any round if AAA are allowed to continue firing.

WILD BILL provided two interesting abilities to planes which can limit somehow the unbalancing effect of AAA#1 or AAA#2 continuous firing :

1- Any hit from attacking planes could be directly taken on AAA units.
2- All attacking aircraft units can retreat after each combat round while ground units still be part of the battle.

Maybe one or both should be add to the mix to reach an equilibrium point.

Seems like a legit point, my thought was that it would put a little more pressure on the German opening, making the standard sz14 opening a bit more risky (if G elects to ignore the canal then UK can make a play for the med, if they go for it, that leaves Gibraltar open.) If Allies don’t want to trade the middle east, then Russia can defend Trans with the tank and 1 fighter (that can still attack W. Russia and make the landing). But to do that and secure Trans then the Soviets have to be involved. This would produce a 50/50 on the G1 attack, but it also means sacrificing a transport, or else risking the loss of the Battleship to a UK airstrike. So there is a definite risk there for both sides.

But somewhere in Sub Sahara Africa would work too. I think if doing that then Rhodesia would probably be the most fun, since it gives a spawn point in sz 33 and a target for G or J to gun for.

I think I will edit to Rhodesia, just to keep things straight forward. This would also be cool for a fighter spawn in sz 33, if UK wants to keep their carrier instead of sending it into an attack. Or as a tank slot, for a sz33 transport or to race up to Egypt in 1 move. If Axis take Rhodesia then it’s a bit easier for them to hold the southern section of Africa. It might also make a factory expansion in SA more attractive for either side, since they’d already have 1 production slot in place (similar to the way Finland makes an IC in Norway a bit more attractive.

Good call man I dig it, Rhodesia it will be. Edited above :)

My mind evolved on this topic when I add my 2 cents into G40 Redesign thread.
Below are the main post which marks how things on lowering Sub A3 D1 C6 to A2fs D1 C5 and DD C6.
@Baron:

Thanks LHoffman for all the questions and commentaries. I would like to give answers to all but don’t have much time.
I will still adress at least a few for now.

@LHoffman:

Hide your kids, hide your wives, tanks are gonna destroy everything out there. :-D :-D :-D
See my related comment under Tac Bomber below…

@Baron:

SUBMARINES A2 First Strike D1 M2 Cost 6
Cannot hit or be hit by other submarines,

Any reason for no sub vs sub combat?

Yes. I don’t want that Submarine be considered as sea-fodder. Also, it needs a little boost on offense (to keep balance vs Destroyer) because it is the only unit which isn’t at lower cost. Now, Subs directly aim surface vessels only. That emphasized the screening and fodder function of Destroyers. If you invest a lot in Submarines, your own surface fleet will be vulnerable against your opponent’s Subs. That wasn’t the case OOB. Large fleet confrontation showed Submarine’s destruction festival. To bypass Subs in a gamey way OOB, you must forget to bring Destroyers, so aircrafts can directly hit enemy’s surface vessels while Submarines on defense (using first strike @1) can still be used as casualty to screen against attacking Submarines (even with first strike @2).
Hope I’m enough clear so you can see the issue.
In addition, I believe it is historically a rare event that a sub sink a sub. Almost the same kind of oddity as Submarine taking down a Fighter with their AA fire.

@Baron:

DESTROYER A2 D2 M2 Cost 6

Nice and cheap.
I read that Destroyers (and Destroyer Escort) were built in very large number amongst all navies.

@Baron:

TRANSPORT A0 D1 Last Strike M2 Cost 8, 1 hit

Must be escorted by a warship when making an amphibious assault in an enemy’s Submarines infested SZ or Transports infested SZ, so to be able to ignore them/ or fight them with combat units.
Otherwise, Submarines and Transports may be ignored during Transport Combat Move or Non Combat Move.

Why so expensive? Most everything else got a cost decrease but transports got increased.

It was a matter of balance compared to the defenseless transports taken last. Using such 1 hit Transport as desperate fodder in needy times can provides a few additionnal hits with larger and costlier warships. That wasn’t the case OOB. So at a matching cost with Fighter at 8 IPCs (OOB worth 10 IPCs), was about the way to statistically get a similar results compared to OOB defenseless transports escorted with Destroyers.

I add this post to provide a link to where my idea on Submarine and Destroyer evolved into.
@Baron:

Cost and units values is a complex matter.
If cost scale is mainly based upon a consistent  OOB ratio amongst units, my previous scale can be increase near OOB too. (Something I just realized.)
Here is 2 comparative scales which can works with my units roster given above.

Unit type   1st scale  Near  OOB scale
Submarine    6             8 IPCs permanent A2 first strike against all surface vessels, including DDs
Destroyer      6             8 IPCs blocks Submerge and Stealth move on a 1:1 basis.
Transport      8             10 IPCS, 1 hit, Last Strike @1, no Taken Last casualty rule
Cruiser          9             12 IPCs with one time AAA capacity
Carrier           12           16 IPCs
Battleship     15           20 IPCs with one time AAA capacity

Fighter           8             10 IPCS
Tactical B.    10            12 IPCS A4D3 with +1 A/D combined arms to Tank
Strategic B.   10           12 IPCs
All aircrafts can hit Submarines without Destroyer presence.

Chosing the appropriate scale is an important issue.
I can only add on this matter that I believe that a lower scale than OOB would accelarate the Allies ticking time bomb because a lot depends on USA warships building pace.

Near OOB cost could be easier to get acceptance.
However, introducing direct hits between planes might produces a lot more losses amongst original set -up units. More  money (from NOs or anything else ) could be needed to keep up with OOB rythm of losses.

@Baron:

@Black_Elk:

I’ll admit to being somewhat torn. On the one hand I think Baron’s unit interactions are excellent and very well thought out, and I also recall the development process over time in countless threads, so I’ve seen how its grown into a pretty complete overhaul. But I also know that people may be reluctant to adopt a series of sweeping changes to the roster. For those who want the familiar OOB combat system just with a different “campaign” dynamic (different NOs, incomes or starting unit distributions) a complete redux of the combat phase might put them off, since it requires you to learn a lot of new things.

I would say that threshold here for me is whether or not the unit interactions can be easily handled in tripleA, without requiring a bunch of new code, or the introduction of new phases and the like.

I’m not a huge fan of combined arms. I know in the OOB game this is a huge part of what makes TacBs useful, but I rather prefer it when each unit has a unique stand alone role, without being reliant on other units to be effective. Artillery set the precedent though, so I suppose its here to stay now, I’d just be careful not to run away with the concept. I think the combat phase becomes a lot less intuitive when the unit attack/defense values change based upon which other units are in the fight. The TacB is rather different than artillery, because it is itself boosted by other units, rather than providing the boost. Artillery has a baseline attack value of 2 that doesn’t change based on which other units are in the fight, which I think is a bit simpler to grasp. I suppose by now everyone is used to the combined arms that currently exist, but adding a bunch of new specialized unit relationships might be off putting to some. Again though, I’m willing to explore at this point. A ground up roster revision is very ambitious.

IDK which direction you will take but I dislike combined arms (except for Art and Inf or MI) too.
Changing the combat value of units during combat is annoying and slowing the pace on A&A boardgame. I know you are looking for simplicity. Hence few revised units, such as Subs, TPs, DDs.
I knew it was bit overstretched.

For Submarines and Destroyers, I cut down the Surprise Strike and blocker because most of the time there is enough DDs to neutralized this special ability. Making both at the same cost would have put a balanced Sub at A3 D1 vs DD at A2 D2. Keeping it at a lower but constant A2 first strike keeps the symbolic surprise attack (figurating the sneaky torpedoes) while putting Subs as a better offensive warship than Destroyer. On the other hand, I simplified the Sub defense value to a regular and constant D1. Anyway, most of the time, it was the usual Sub defense OOB since DD is always present to block Subs escape.

So, when Sub is part of a fight it keeps the same value from the start till the end. Simpler.
Since this Sub is weaker than OOB Sub vs Destroyers, I add Sub cannot hit Sub (for offense while making it a less interesting fodder) and gives it a better survivability with DD blocking Submerge and Stealth only on 1:1 ratio which make sense at the same cost.
At least, when a Submarine will be on offense, the A2 first strike promise to be more satisfying than OOB.

On TcB and StB, making them the same cost with same attack value A4 is going to put players on a difficult dilemma: better range and mobility or better overall unit in defense. Buying TcBs A4 D3 M4 instead of StBs A4 D1 M6 will reduced the effectiveness of Dark Sky which rely a lot on higher mobility.

@Baron:

@The:

Since Sub always have First Strike I thought only undetected subs have the first strike option (@2 in attack & @1 while defending) while detected subs fire along with all other vessels. At least this is the way we handle this in our games

OOB, you are right Sub cost 6, A2 D1 and gets Surprise Strike if no DD is present.

In my redesign Sub suggestion, DD cost 6 and block 1:1 Sub’s Submerge and Stealth Move, but can’t affect the Sub’s Surprise Strike (at 5 IPCs vs 6 IPCs, A2 first strike vs D2, the IPC ratio already put DD at the same OOB AACalc odds of 6 IPCs vs 8 IPCs, A2 vs D2)

OOB odds: 88% vs 11%
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=8&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=6&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

Redesign odds: 88% vs 12%
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=6&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=5&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

Simpler to let Sub, cost 5, attack A2 First strike all the time, but defend @1 regular.
Anyway, you would need Destroyer as fodder and to attack Sub, because they can Submerge, if their is no DD.

@Baron:

Unit type
Cost  Combat values
Special abilities

SUBMARINE
5 IPCs A2fs* D1 M2
Permanent A2 first strike *against all surface vessels only, including DDs.
Cannot hit Sub or Aircraft
Submerge and Stealth Move

DESTROYER
6 IPCs A2 D2 M2
Block Sub’s Submerge (first round only) and Stealth move, both on a 1:1 basis.

TRANSPORT
8 IPCs A0 D0 M2, 1 hit,
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against warships,
1 Transport can escape from Naval Battle in the same SZ at each end of combat round, if there is no enemy’s aircraft. Simply remove TP from battle board and place it in the SZ on the map.
Regular AA @1 against up to 1 plane, whichever the lesser.

Undecided: Submarine’s Stealth Move and No Control of Sea Zone still afford 1 single shot @1 per Submarine unit against any warships or transports passing by in the same SZ.

This is one possible result once added into lower cost structure.
@Baron:

This is the reduced cost structure with near OOB cost for planes and Carrier holding 2 planes (Fgs or TcBs).
I also stick to this cost structure (5-6-9-12-15).
I put the 1 hit Transport at 8 IPCs.
I write here many ideas which still fit into core roster at this low cost.
All other ground units are as OOB, except for Tank which no longer gives attack bonus to TacB.

Feel free to quote, erase the quotation and my name, then change the units according to your idea.
This can be a tool to provide a full view of everyone roster.

Unit type  
Cost   Combat values
Special abilities

SUBMARINE
5  IPCs A2fs* D1 M2
Permanent A2 first strike *against all surface vessels only, including DDs.
Cannot hit Sub or Aircraft
Submerge and Stealth Move
On offense, Sub’s commander can allocate each hit whether on transports group or warships group, the owner still choose which individual unit is the casualty.

On defense, Stealth Move allows (but not compel to) each Sub 1 single roll@1 against any ships passing through the Sub’s SZ. Only each Destroyer can get a single retaliate roll @2.

DESTROYER
6  IPCs A2 D2 M2
Block Sub’s Submerge (first round only) and Stealth move, both on a 1:1 basis.

TRANSPORT
8  IPCs A0 regAA1 D0 M2, 1 hit, taken as casualty according to owner’s choice.
Carry 2 units, 1 Inf + 1 any ground unit
No defense against warships,
1 Transport can escape from Naval Battle in the same SZ at each end of combat round, if there is no enemy’s aircraft. Simply remove TP from battle board and place it in the SZ on the map.
Regular AA @1 against up to 1 plane, whichever the lesser.
Can unload in a Sub infested SZ if escorted by surface warships.

If you bring them in with attackers - as you would for amphibious - then any defense shots in excess of what is needed to sink the accompany ships MUST be applied to any transports until all shots are accounted for or there are no units left to assign them to. (Per OOB rule.)

CRUISER
9 IPCs  A3 D3 M3
Shore Bombard 3
Gives +1 move to 1 surface vessel, paired 1:1

FLEET CARRIER
12  IPCs A0 D2 M2, 2 hits,
Carry 2 planes,
damaged Carrier still carry one aircraft.

BATTLESHIP
15  IPCs A4 D4 M2, 2 hits,
Shore Bombard 4

Both repair at purchase and repair phase in a SZ adjacent to a Naval Base SZ, or in NB SZ.
Naval Base cannot repair more than 3 warships hits per turn.

FIGHTER
10 IPCs A3 D4 M4
SBR: A2 D2, interceptors always destroy bombers first.

TACTICAL BOMBER
12 IPCs A4 D3 M4
TBR: A1first strike,  Damage D6 on AB or NB,
SBR: can do escort mission for StBs without bombing AB or NB.

STRATEGIC BOMBER
12 IPCs  A4 D1 M6
SBR:  AA A1first strike up to two Fighters, whichever the lesser,
Damage on IC, AB, NB D6+2 /minimum damage 2 pts if hit by IC’s/AB or NB’s AA gun.
No damage when destroyed by intercepting Fighters.

All aircrafts can hit unsubmerged Submarines without Destroyer presence.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY
4 IPCs A0 D1 AAx2* M1 CM or NCM, 1 hit,
Taken as last casualty on offence.
*Fire each round @1 first strike against up to two aircrafts, which ever the lesser.
Regular defense @1 if there is no enemy’s plane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQUXuQ6Zd9w

I’m with you on the bonus staying pretty simple. There’s enough going on in Axis and Allies attached to the VC and worded as an objective bonus. Kind of primes players for the concept of an NO generally, if they like to move on to other games like AA50 or the 1940 games, so I like that aspect from a teaching perspective.

Its interesting you mention adding set factories to 1941. After AA50 I became very interested in the idea of just setting up a board with all the factories already in place, and removing the factory as a purchasable unit from that game. 1941 does the job for you in a way, by eliminating the unit from the roster, which makes the game a lot more straightforward. Especially for new players, its just one less thing you have to worry about (where to buy a factory, and how to exploit production etc.) When we first started trying to adapt 1941, we played a number of set factory games.

First idea was to just give each power 1 additional factory, but set in a place that would make sense for the period, but also be relatively balanced/entertaining.

We put it up to choice between a few different factory options for each power…

So for the Russians the question is between Archangel and Karelia?
Archangel factory has a potential upside for Allies in that it’s one space further from the immediate eastern front, but the downside is that its closer to Moscow if Axis control, and also closer to Japan via Urals. Still contested out of sz 4. Karelia provides some interest in that it gives G another early target, and an early foothold that it can use in sz 5 or sz 4. This draws more attention off Caucasus, but I think ultimately Karelia goes to Axis advantage, since Germany can get the drop on it so quickly. Archangel gets another round.

For the Germans: Italy seemed the obvious choice on balance and for the history.

For the British: Egypt, South Africa, or Canada? Its kind of a tough call here too, but the consensus view seemed to be that Egypt was simply too overpowered, and made the med too “do or die.” South Africa also felt a little overpowered, but did have a kind of classic charm to it, reminding me of many games in Classic where the UK would use that strat. On balance though Canada is a lot safer for Allies. It has a less dramatic impact on the opening round, and can be very helpful in rebuilding the royal navy after Germany sweeps it up. UK is under a lot of pressure already with production split up various places. The British are more likely to be torn between purchases if you put it in Canada, which has a kind of novelty.

For the Japanese: Manchuria. Manchuria is the only candidate really from the history, for what the Japanese had going in Chosen and the resources from Manchukuo. This gives Japan 6 production, on par with the other powers and able to match W.US production into the pacific. Basically Japan is less nerfed if they can hold it. The problem here though is the scripted attack on Manchuria on R1. This is the favored play for KJF already, but putting a factory in Manchuria just puts a big target on it. I’m not sure its necessarily a problem because it kind of reminds one of Zhukov in early days, albeit anachronous hehe. Japan can usually retake the territory on J1, so its not much of a problem and takes the first round production boost out. Just sets off an early pacific fight basically, encouraging Russia to send the fighter to China and try the Japan crush gambit.

For the Americans: Szechwan, Philippines, or Hawaii?
I favor Hawaii for the history, and on balance. Philippines is more a gift to Japan. Szechwan in like a built in burma road bonus, but throws off the china balance more dramatically if taken. Hawaii is kind of out of the way, but it returns an American advantage in Pacific production 7 vs 6 Japanese production. Its a target to split Japan off focus on India and Moscow, so I like that aspect.

Basically you could let each player choose if you want to show them the advantages or overpowering exploits of production in different places. Or teach how cliff hangers can tilt to be all one sides over places like Egypt and Szech and Karelia. One additional factory to each player 3 Allies vs 2 Axis, is fairly straightforward. But then you basically revert it to a fixed production type game. It has the advantage of restricting and focusing everybody equally by the inclusion of new production elements.

1941 is a fun board to play around with because it’s set up is so fast and relatively simple play time, provided you include Artillery. The artillery unit is essential for this map to be fun :)

Just a suggestion, not promoting anything.  You could go check out the Historical Board Gaming site,  they might have a few things you’re looking for.  They pretty much have everything.

that seems a little complicated though. Besides, getting a fair moderater might prove to be a challange.