Turning A&A 50 into A&A 1940

After several more games, that have all ended with my winning, My friends and I have decided to add a number of objectives, and an alliance system to it, to give them game a bit more of a purpose. We have several New national objectives for each of the countries, and we have written up 24 global objectives for players to accomplish to win the game. The thought is to give each player 2 or 3 global objectives and this is what they have to do to win the game. We are going to be spending all friday night and saturday day play testing these out. God Help me!  😉

@Trisdin:

@Imperious:

A factory is france is worse for Germany, while the others listed are clearly in favor to benefit those players.

Perhaps Romania is best actually. Then Germany can build ships for Medd. Yes i like this better

Romania is a good idea, it gives Germany a second sea zone to build ships in and it allows germany to build land units closer to Russia, but is it historicaly accurate or viable.

yeah, it’s viable: didn’t antonescu aide the germans allot?

Retreat and Pursuit Clarifications…

Clarifications…

Not all attacking ships must pursue.  The sea zone is used for 2 separate battles if the defender has scrambled planes to the sea zone. Scrambling planes cannot retreat, and would fight any ships that did not pursue. Any opponent ships that are in the target retreat zone are not included in the combat. After combat, if the target retreat sea zone has no surviving defenders, the attacker has option to occupy with
pursuing ships, even IF the defender retreated twice. If attacking planes have enough MP after their move into the battle sea zone, then the defender might not have enough MP to retreat.
Example: 1 attacking fighter, 1 defending DD.
a) Attacker uses 1 MP to SZ (has 3 MP remaining).
b) Defender uses 1 MP to retreat (has 1 MP remaining).
*) Attacker can choose not to pursue and gets 1 free shot - all combat finished.
c) Attacker pursues with 1 MP and 1 round of combat occurs (assume 0 hits) (has 2 MP remaining).
d) Defender uses 1 MP to retreat (has 0 MP remaining).
e) Attacker pursues with 1 MP and 1 round of combat occurs (assume 0 hits) (has 1 MP remaining).
f) Defender cannot retreat and x rounds of combat occur (assume defender sunk).
g) Attacker uses 1 MP remaining to return to base or carrier.

Answers to questions…

How many complete combat round is allowed before defender retreat?  The retreat can be immediate, and attacker then chooses to take free shot or pursue.
One as per planes retreat in amphibous assault? Not sure understand question.
Does the second combat round then becomes an all one free shots for the attacker? Yes it would if defender burned another MP to retreat. Unless attacking planes are involved.

If some warships can pursuit, do they get their free shot too, before continuing naval battle with retreating defender?  No, they either pursue OR take free shot on the retreating ships.
Is it possible to flee this second naval combat with another move point? Yes, though if survive, they would only actually be just 1 sea zone away with 0 MP available in their next move.
In this case, there is nothing the attacker can do then, right? Correct (unless planes involved). The defender is burning up his MP from his next turn to just get 1 SZ away.

An example or two can useful to understand multiples cases.  Yes, see example above.
Thanks.

@Partydad do a search on the forums here- there are several groups here that use a variety of well-tested event cards.

there was a Historical version of Revised online for tournaments or something. 
in that version they also had rules for adding Italy, to make 6 players.

also the turn order became…

in the 1st round………
Russia, then Both Axis players (Also Italy if played) taking there turn together as one (Each phase done together),
then US & UK also taking there turn together

every round after……… the Axis (together), then the Allies (Together).

very interesting way to play. unfortunately i never got to play this version so i dont know how well it worked.  And I dont know how it would work for 1942.

I remember When they added Italy they made Germany itself worth 20 IPC’s,  Italy started with 12 and controlled Southern Europe (which was split into Italy & S. Europe), Balkans, Algieria.  there were other changes to the map as well.

I have something new in mind. A game with OOB.1-tt-movement. A Major power is only allowed to attack once in a turn.

First Three powers have mandatory attacks: Austria -> Serbia. Russia -> GE. GE-> Belgium.

A power collapses if 3 of its Home-tts were captured by the enemy. (Russia 4 tts) (or if the capital is lost) Game is over if two CPs or three Allies are finished.

OE, Italy and other minor powers enter war as they did historical. It is not allowed to attack them before their entry.

Neutrals are impassable.

Capturing tts doesnt pimp your income. Minor powers if not captured generate their own units (they can spend their own IPCs every turn they survive)

Not sure about the initial Setup-armys:

Maybe:

Belgium 6/2
Portugal 1 (it will after entering war consequently produce one Inf per turn surely without getting captured)
Bulgaria 8/2
Romainia 7/2
Serbia 6/2
Montenegro 3/1
Arabia 2
Greece 3/1

India can build max. 16 IPcs per turn.

Rest you can see on the map.

USW means a 12-sided dice if one Sub manages to be in a zone when US/GB collect income.

US-initial Setup has 6 more Inf.

6 more Infs for Russia.
Austria gives 3 Infs and 2 Art to GE.

GB gets one more transport in India.

1914NEWDEAL.png

@FMErwinRommel I think that would be a good rule too. It makes more sense if you want to be as accurate as possible.

The main advantage for overall game balance in AA50 1942 (Allies v Axis) under these rules (with the non-com opening), is that the US gets to keep their Pacific carrier deck. This is fairly major in encouraging the dual theater war, and is one of the things we like most about the set up. The bonus structure also encourages a more effective Russian tank purchase under most set ups, which leads to a dramatic Kursk style scenerio on the eastern front under most openings. Japan alternatively has a much greater incentive to build air and naval, because the Allied position on the sea is stronger, requiring a more substantial counter.

Also, and this is just an aside, but having played quite a few alternative starts now, it has become much clearer to me why the gameplay on this mapboard is so centered around Moscow and Europe. It is a consequence of the basic map territory connections. 7 territories border Moscow which mean 7 ways in, a split 7 defense of the capital. Berlin is 5 territories and a sea zone, 6 ways in, 6 split defense. UK is 5 all from the sea. Compared to Eastern USA and Japan which can both be defended from a single sea zone, it is fairly clear to me why the board would favor KGF, regardless of the unit set up, or the starting income conditions. And why Moscow is the clear choice over London, for a conservative Axis warplan.

Still, that said, I do find that the bonus scheme outlined above helps to moderate the built-into-the-board drivers on Moscow and Berlin (and to a lesser extent London), and pushes it instead into a somewhat more “world” wide conflict. Plus the idea of a board which features 6 possible starts rather than just 1 seems to me a worthwhile thing to pursue. At least 6 times the replay, but much more in actuality, since the bonuses allow for so many potentially different purchasing strats.