I stacked them in Bury and they’re still there
He has 1 INF in Man so I haven’t been able to just walk in
He hasn’t really tried getting them out of Bury or positioned himself to do so (his TRNs are mostly down south)

Personally axis_roll, I’ve just come to the conclusion that Imperious is obsessed with “Historical Realism” and there’s nothing wrong with that.

I suppose one can think that I’m more obsessed with “Increasing Strategic Options and Variation in Playout”, and that’s OK too.

I think that when we see each of us comes to these forums with our own particular biases, then we come to understand each other and there is not always a need for a response.  I just chalk it up to Imperious being Imperious  :-)

My only hope, is that maybe one day Imperious can see that this vairant is mainly about Strategy and Playout, rather than history, and just chalk it up to cousin_joe being cousin_joe.  That’s when we’ll have progress  :-D

How about it Imperious?  :-)

@allweneedislove:

cousin joe, i really enjoyed your axis and allies revised enhanced rules.

i hope you create a ruleset for anniversary that is as enjoyable as aare was.

the reason that aare was so fun was there were many strategies and a wide variety of playouts.

i do not believe the half price industrial complex is the answer to more strategy.

AWNIL,

Hey there, long time, no see  :-D

I agree, the 1/2 price IC is not THE solution, but I do think it’s part of it
Once we get UK participating in the Pacific/SE Asia, then it opens up several more strategic possibilities.
For example, because UK is just so dominant in the Atlantic currently,  German SUBs are a waste of time
This will eventually be addressed

What we really need to increase strategy is a Directed Tech system (please see other post).  That’s when strategic options will really start coming into play instead of just the randomness that exists now.

@General:

Also I would like to ask CJ if he would mind consolodating all his AA enhanced rules into one thread.  I would like to print them out and all the different threads makes that task difficult.  Are you going to produce a PDF maybe?  That would be great.

If you mean AA50 Strategic, it’s still undergoing some modifications

If you mean AAR: Enhanced, I know there’s a PDF floating around somewhere on the internet as well as several .txt, .html and .doc files.

@General:

Hi there,

I have just come to this thread from my other thread about using 13 VC.

I think that CJ has put forward an idea to bring about more variation in games and should be applauded.

Why dont we all test it out and see how it goes.  I’m going to give it a go in my next game.

The only way to truly see if it works is to test it IMO  :-D

Thanks General Chang… A General and a Diplomat  :-D
That’s all I’m asking for… just to try it out and see how it goes  :-)

@axis_roll:

@squirecam:

@axis_roll:

@squirecam:

And what if you believe (as you stated earlier) that 1 unit is a normal bid, but the IC is much better than a bid unit. Do you get to the point where UK gets an IC, but gives the axis IPC??

And dont you see the inherent problem in that ??

Let me correctly understand what you are saying.

It seems that you are saying that an Axis Player would be so confident that they could give UK a free (albeit limited) IC in either India or Australia at no cost.  Then what’s the next bid…. well then the allies would be getting IPCs, yes, like a normal bid.

I do not think that the axis will be giving away a FREE limited IC, let alone giving units to the allies.

Or maybe you didn’t follow my bid example correctly?

I was discussing the situation where 1 INF is an “equal” bid, and how a 1/2 IC can be perceived as better than that bid. Thus, by allowing the 1/2 IC (depending on how much is paid for it within limits), you are not equaling the bid, but switching the advantage from axis to allies.

In your bid example, the allies are paying less and less for an IC. But what about if you believe the IC is too much of an advantage. Do you eventually give the axis a bid to compensate??

If I am the Bidding for the axis and I think the IC is too much of an advantage, I would bid to give the IC to the allies at $20!  who would take the allies at that point?

@squirecam:

Also, lets say I DONT want an IC. I’m not going to put one in India anyway. But I certainly dont want to give you one.

Again, you miss the whole idea of the limited IC idea.  yes, it HAS to go to India or Australia (or east Canada, but that option only is viable with the entire AA50 Strategic rule set)…

BUT THAT’S THE POINT!  It is not JUST ABOUT BALANCE, it’s about strongly encouraging UK to fight Japan.
Of course, you can always NOT buy the IC at all as well.

But I will continue with your discussion.

@squirecam:

You “win” the bid. And say I can have the IC at $8. This does NOTHING for me, as I wont be playing a pacific campaign, nor do I believe in putting one in Canada. basically, you’ve prevented me from having any bid units.

If you don’t want the allies with an $8 IC, bid for the axis lower.

@squirecam:

What are my choices? Play without a bid? (Even if I think 8 is a proper one)? Bid less and give you the IC you want anyway (when you will just keep lowering the cost yourself) ??

Basically, what is the reasonable “value” of this IC. It is certainly not = to a 1 INF bid. Which causes a different advantage in the game. Which is what I was getting at earlier…

I don’t think you will reach the point where NO ONE will take the allies with a free limited IC.
However, I ALSO think the bid would never get that low.

So you’re inherent problem doesn’t exist.

@squirecam:

Now does Axis get bid units to compensate?? Do Allies get their IC but Axis get 2 INF??

Now do you see the inherent problem???

I can see your thinking, but what you describe is merely a concept/theory.  It doesn’t play out in the real game play situation.  So I do not think a problem exists.  Who would not take a free {limited} IC?  Worse case is placing that in Australia, adding 2 inf for a turn or two there.  Japan would probably never take it then.  That alone is a $4 swing.  Now is that OVER powered for the allies.  I do not think so.

---

before you reply, I will again, continue your discussion and play along to give you another reason why the bid would never go ‘negative’.  No player in their right mind would EVER give the axis a bid in 1941 with NOs.  So, I guess, they would be ‘FORCED’ into taking a free IC in India/Australia.

I have a feeling the bid mechanism will determing the proper value of the limited IC, with a zero being a realistic limit.

Excellent post

I couldn’t have said it better myself  :-D

Squirecam: The idea of the AA50 Strategic ruleset is to encourage UK to be active in the Pacific/SE Asian theatres and to prevent Japan from becoming such a MONSTER
To do this, the 1/2 IC rule is introduced so UK can actually have a viable IC in one of those theatres

If you are fine with the boring, old KGF/monster Japan playout, then by all means, keep playing with your standard bid rules, and we can just agree to say that maybe AA50: Strategic is not the ruleset for you.

@squirecam:

@cousin_joe:

The rules proposed are meant for the 1941 scenario with National Objectives in play
I bleieve this is the most popular option, especially since the NOs are the newly introduced item with the Anniversary Edition

I should be testing the 1/2 IC rule soon in live play, and will look for some online players as well.  I’ll probably look at No Tech to start.  I agree with axis_roll that the 1/2 IC is clearly superior to a unit bid for India and a purchased IC UK1.

The additional benefit of the 1/2 IC is that Japan has no idea where UK will place the IC (unlike a bid).  If you place a unit bid in India with plans for an IC later, Japan can move towards it on J1 and position for a strike on J2, knowing the IC is likely going there.  With the 1/2 IC, UK can place on India or Aus, whichever is safer after J1.

If you are relying on “surprise” to make a 1/2 IC effective, you’ve already lost. The best strategies are ones an opponent can see coming, but still isnt easy to beat. After the first “surprise” the 1/2 IC wont be, and its usefulness reduced.

You must be able to place an IC in India and defned it, even if Japan knows its coming, in order for the “fix” to be useful.

And as for Australia, a 1/2 IC (where no planes or ships can be built) is only useful for defense. You need to spend $ to upgrade it (which basically ruins the whole point of the 1/2 IC, because if you want/need a full IC, just buy one).

Answer the following:

An IC in canada does nothing for historical accuracy or playout (it just makes KGF easier). True?

A bid of 8 + full IC is cheaper than a 1/2 IC + buying 8 IPC worth of units. True?

Having units that can move r1 is an advantage. True?

Having a full IC is more useful than a 1/2 IC. True?

An India 1/2 IC doesnt do anything a bid + India IC does better. True?

As stated previously, all of these rules are up for debate
Canada’s inclusion as a possibility was maybe more for historical reasons than strategic
After a recent test game, I am wondering about the possibility of South Africa as a potential placement location
Unfortunately, I don’t think this would do a whole lot to slow down monster Japan (and you’re right, neither would the one in Canada)

Perhaps it’s best to leave the locations as either India or Australia only.

@axis_roll:

@cousin_joe:

-If you’re wanting to decide who plays who, you can simply bid for the starting cost of the IC (anywhere from 0-15).  If you felt you were a strong Allied player, you would be willing to pay more, whereas if you felt stronger with Axis, you would be willing to give/take the IC for less.

We’re going to play this in a FTF game this weekend.  I think we’ll just flip a coin for sides although your bid the IC cost idea is novel.

Maybe the bidding should be for the perceived stronger side (axis), making the I limited IC progressively cheaper.

For example:
Player A:  I will be the axis and will allow the UK to buy a limited IC at a cost of $9
Player B:  No, I want the axis and will allow the limited IC to cost $8
Player A:  $7
Player B:  OK, you can be the axis.  I can buy a limited IC for UK for $7 on UK1.

Yes, this would work as well .  It makes it a little more straight forward

AFTER ACTION REPORT

Hey guys, managed to get a short game started with using only this rule in play

1941 Scenario, with NOs
We did allow Tech but no one has gone for it so far
We only made it to G4
I was Allies, my opponent was Axis (seasoned A&A player but only 2nd game of Anniversary.  I did give him hints about my J1 opening which I probably shouldn’t have  :-) )
We decided pregame that I would take the 1/2 IC for 8 IPC

G1 - pretty standard, went after as much of UK fleet as possible and took the 3 key territories on the Eastern Front
-conservative INF build.  I’d say German losses were maybe a bit more than expected.
R1 - standard, stacked Bury, took back BSt, 2INF Kaz to Per, 1ARM Rus to Cau (just in case India neded the help)
J1 - took out most of Allied Navy with pretty good dice (not much losses)
set up fork on Ind/Aus
UK1 - this was a critical decision.  Japan did have better than average rolls and had most of their aircraft intact.  Aus was definitely a safe spot.  Ind was OK but I would need the Rus INF and the FTR from Egy (I would end up leaving the ARM in Rus).  I bought AC(14),DD(8),IC(8),2ARM(10),1INF(3).
I1 - bought a TRN and loaded up Lib.  A bit of support sent to France
US1 - didn’t send any FTRs to Aus as odds didn’t look great (would have been OK if new UK IC + units were there).  Built AC,DD,SUB,CA.  China still had FTR and conducted attack.  Transported units to UK

G2-3 pushed towards Karelia.  Attacked on G4.  Was a really close battle with Germany winning with 2ARM + Air left.  Ended up calling game for now there as it was late but certainly game could still go either way.  UK had some units positioned in Fin with the fleet in SZ6
R2-3 mostly INF with occ RTL and ARM.  Karelia ended up falling but Cau and Rus pretty secure
J2-3 Japan was very active fighting on a lot of fronts.  They took Aus J2.  Income was in the mid-40s.  They were just starting to come back towards India on J3.  Still looks like they need 1-2 more turns to be a threat though
UK2-3 noticed they were not as dominant in the Atlantic as normal.  However, India was pretty strong.  Had to fall back a bit in Africa and surrendered Egypt.  Very fun to play though.  Managed to cheap shot a Jap TRN with my FTR (he forgot about the no defense thing) :-D
I2-3 Italy did OK.  They eventually took Egypt.
US2-3 Went mostly Pacific but did send some stuff towards Europe as well.  Couldn’t really get past Hawaii as Japan navy was pretty strong.  China was just barely holding on but FTR was still intact.  Income was in high 40s

We ended the game at 2am, but hopefully will pick it up in the next week or 2
My buddy thought the 1/2 IC idea was… in his words… “AWESOME!”
I’m not sure I’d describe it in those words, but it definitely added a lot to the game  :-)
He said his 1st game was total KGF and Monster Japan (He was Allies) just like all the previous editions

I know it’s just one game, and it’s early, but  here are some of my general observations…

-Germany actually seems stronger in this game.  UK can’t just build their big fleet and drop units wherever they please.  They also seem to be more of a threat to get to Russia.
-UK has some tough purchase decisions.  They need to support both UK but also their other IC
-Japan is definitely not as dominant.  They got some great dice J1 and so still managed to run over China, but the Indian IC definitely slows them down.
-US still seems to be a bit weak fleet wise but having the Indian IC for Japan to deal with definitely helps (ie. not a complete mismatch)

-As for balance, it’s really hard to say at this point.  So far, things seem to be pretty even.  The India IC’s standing is pretty tentative.  It’s going to depend on how much Japan can send over there while at the same time trying to keep balance with the building US Navy.  Even with that said, I beleive the rule achieves what we set out to do since Monster Japan is no more, and Germany is the more dominant Axis power with a chance to take Moscow (UK not as much of a hindrance to them).

Bottom Line: Good Rule change so far, and I’d encourage more people to give it a try.  Feel free to post your After Action Reports on this thread.  :-D

With your typical 1941 scenario with NOs but without Techs, games still seem like they’re really lacking strategic options
Still feel we need directed Tech as suggested above, but I’ve dramatically cut down the number of New Techs

12 Original + 6 New Global + 6 New Allied + 6 New Axis = 30 Techs originally suggested

now changed to:

12 Original + 4 New Global + 3 New Allied + 3 New Axis = 22 Techs in AA50 Strategic

These are down to what I think were just the absolute necessary ones for Stategy and Balance