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  

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 

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 

Thanks General Chang… A General and a Diplomat 
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  

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)
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.  

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

I’m wanting to condense rules for AA50 Strategic down as much as possible
I do still like the idea of adding ONE unique Tech to each nation
Mass Aircraft and Heavy Transports are not really needed, game’s are generally shorter and these are less advantageous to research
Royal Air Force will also be eliminated as it’s use is limited in a shorter game
With only 1 starting BB, Yamatos has limited use and can also be eliminated (I’ve kept Air bases as a Global Tech (at reduced cost) for Naval defense vs. HB)

**RUSSIA

MOBILE INDUSTRY (Minor Tech, 5IPC/researcher)
-Your ICs may move 1 territory during NCM (as long as you owned them at turn start). ICs can only move among Red territories. They may produce in territories they just moved to, as long as Russia owned the territory at turn start. Production in the new location is “Limited” to INF, RTL and ARM only, up to the territory limit.
-Multiple ICs may exist in a single territory, but only 1 remains active (for the purposes of Rocket attacks, SBR and unit production)

UNITED STATES

REINFORCED CARRIERS (Minor Tech, 5IPC/researcher)
-Your ACs require 2 hits to destroy, just like BBs

UNITED KINGDOM

JOINT COMMAND: D-DAY (Minor Tech, 5IPC/researcher)
-Once during the game, at the start of UK’s turn, you may declare a D-Day Invasion, a combined attack of UK and US forces which occurs on UKs turn. D-Day may only target France, and all attacking land and sea units MUST amphibious assault from SZ 7 (with the rare exception of land units already in Ger, NWEur, or Italy which can attack France as per regular rules). Air units may come in from any territory provided they have enough movement points.
-On the UK turn, you may command any US units in range of France.  These US units cannot be used on US’ next turn. US units can use UK transports and vice versa.
-The UK and US must agree on casualties, otherwise the defender chooses. AAGun fire is rolled separately against each nation. Techs still only apply to the units of the power that has them.**

I’m wanting to condense rules for AA50 Strategic down as much as possible
I do still like the idea of adding ONE unique Tech to each nation
Atlantic Wall and Panzerblitz are not really necessary and add more complexity than needed
With only 1 starting BB, Yamatos has limited use and can also be eliminated (I’ve kept Air bases as a Global Tech (at reduced cost) for Naval defense vs. HB)

**GERMANY

1. WOLFPACKS (Minor Tech, 5IPC/researcher)
-improved communications grant subs the following benefits:
a) Destroyers now detect Subs on a 1:1 ratio.  Any Sub that is undetected, does not have any of it’s special abilities cancelled (eg. Sub movement, Submersible and Surprise Strike)
b) ALL Subs, regardless of whether a Destroyer is present or not, can ALWAYS submerge after 1 round of combat
c) ATTACKING Subs that are not detected, have the option of choosing transports as their primary target.  Subs roll their Surprise Strike and can have their 1st hit dedicated to sinking a transport.  Any subsequent hits are targeted at other naval vessels.

JAPAN

1. TOKYO EXPRESS (Minor Tech, 5IPC/Researcher)
-Your DDs gain limited transport capability. Maximum carrying capacity is 2INF per DD. Each DD can be used during either Combat or NCM, but not both
i) COMBAT - Your DDs can load and/or unload only 1 INF during Combat. A unit loaded in Combat must be unloaded in Combat on the same TURN (unless DD is sunk or forced to retreat). If the SZ is hostile, your DD must first participate in Naval Combat. If your DD survives, it may then unload 1INF into the Amphibious Assault.
ii) NON-COMBAT - Your DDs not participating in Combat can load and/or unload up to 2 INF during NCM. INF loaded during NCM do not need to be unloaded the same TURN, and may remain aboard the DD. A loaded DD does not suffer any combat penalties.

ITALY

1. MERCHANT MARINE (Minor Tech, 5IPC/Researcher)
-Up to 2INF/TURN can be transported from Italy to Algeria without a transport as long as Axis controls Italy, Algeria, and there are no Allied surface ships in SZ 14.**

Actually Oztea, I like this idea

UK NO #1

Gain 5IPCs if Allied powers control all of the following territories: ECa, WCa, Gib, Egy, Aus, SAfr and no Axis submarines in sea zones: 2,3,6,7,8

US NO #1

Gain 5IPCs if Allied powers control all of the following territories: WUS, CUS, EUS and no Axis submarines in sea zones: 9,10,53,56

Jap NO #1

Gain 5IPCs if Axis powers control all of the following territories: Man, Kia, FIC and no Allied submarines in sea zones: 59,60,61,62

This is along the lines of what we had in AAR:Enhanced, but I like your suggestion of tying it into existing NOs (NOs which normally would be pretty safe)
This rewite has the added benefits of letting Germany deny as much as 10IPCs from the Allies (5UK,5US)
Also, it doesn’t make Germany too much stronger (as the extra 5IPCs would previously)
UK has to fight to clear the Atlantic or they won’t get their 5 extra IPCs
US will suffer some consequences if they go all out KGF

For simplification purposes, I think I’ll probably condense this down to just 4 new Global techs
-Air Transport and Atomic Bomb will be deleted
-Air Bases will be reduced to a minor Tech for 5IPC/researcher

**1. ESCORTS (Minor Tech, 5IPC/researcher)
-Fighters can participate in strategic bombing raids. Attacking fighters may escort and protect the bombers, and they can originate from any territory, range permitting.

2. INTERCEPTORS (Moderate Tech, 7IPC/researcher)
-Any or all defending fighters based in a territory that is strategically bombed can participate in the defense of the industrial complex. The number of fighters that will defend is decided after the attacker’s Combat Movement phase is completed and before the Combat phase begins.

3. ASW-CRUISERS (Minor Tech, 5IPC/researcher)
-Your cruisers now have the same capabilites as destroyers do against subs.

4. AIR BASES (Moderate Tech, 5IPC/researcher)
-Your fighters on islands (one land territory surrounded by one SZ) can now defend the adjacent SZ if attacked**

-Escorts and Interceptors are basically necessary vs. SBR strategies
-ASW Cruisers can be helpful for UK and for Jap/US in the Pacific
-Air Bases gives something to help Navies against HB

That’s all good with me because I don’t want to be in the same bracket as axis_roll  

I’m not into early exits  

I think it would be interesting to have after action reports after the Spring 1941 tournament
Here we are playing with a standardized ruleset: 1941 scenario, with NOs, but without Techs and in a competitive environment, with what I assume would be with better than average players

Now the game does have a bid, so I think it will change things up a little bit, but this is what I predict you will see…

1. Axis still wins majority of the time (players will likely have a tendency to underbid for Allies)
2. Most victories will be either Monster Japan getting to Moscow, or Allies conquering Germany via KGF
3. Dice will play a very large factor in deciding the outcomes  (smart players know to push their units toward their targets, UK–>Ger, Ger–>Rus, Jap–>Rus, US–>Ger)).  In these types of push games, strategic options are very limited and results often depend on dice.

Now if this is indeed how most competitive games play out, then I would say Axis&Allies Anniversary has a MAJOR problem
I think as good strategic players, we deserve better, and I think we could use the After Action Reports to maybe modify our bidding scheme to make for a much for fun, strategic, and competitive game.

I’ve alluded to this idea of a pre-placed UK IC in other threads, but if anyone’s willing to play a game (ABattlemap) and create an After Action report on what I suspect will be a much better playout, I’d be more than willing 

Pre-placed UK IC
-On UK1 only, during the Purchase Units phase, UK may purchase a “Limited IC” for placement in either India, Australia, or Eastern Canada. 
-This “Limited IC” costs 8 IPC.  Units purchased on UK1 may be placed at the IC this turn (up to the territory limit)
-This “Limited IC” can only produce INF, RTL, and ARM initially but can be upgraded to a full IC on a future turn (for an additional 7 IPC)

Just to go a bit further with game balance, I can’t say for sure that the 1/2 IC at 8IPC will balance the game.  This needs playtesting to figure out.  However, using this rule, it is possbile to create a bidding system where the actual number that’s bid on, is the cost of this 1/2 IC.  I posted the following over at the AAMC web site which kind of gives the gist of how this bidding system works…

Hey guys,

I posted this in the other thread, but maybe I should hve posted it here.
I would like AAMC to reconsider the bidding process for AA50 1941 scenario games:

AA50 suffers from the same typical design flaws as it’s predecessors…

UK IC not viable in Pacific/Asia
UK instead goes 100% against Germany
Unopposed Japan explodes and Becomes a MONSTER!
US can try 100% vs. Japan but is outmatched, eventually needs to go to Berlin
Game boils down to typical “Can Allies get to Berlin before Japan gets to Moscow scenario”

If you guys really want to think out of the box, I’d suggest a house rule like the following…

Pre-placed UK IC
-On UK1 only, during the Purchase Units phase, UK may purchase a “Limited IC” for placement in either India, Australia, or Eastern Canada. 
-This “Limited IC” costs 8 IPC.  Units purchased on UK1 may be placed at the IC this turn (up to the territory limit)
-This “Limited IC” can only produce INF, RTL, and ARM initially but can be upgraded to a full IC on a future turn (for an additional 7 IPC)

-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.

-The idea here is that instead of a very static and nonchallenging push game (Ger–>Rus, UK–>Ger, US–>Jap, Jap–>Rus) you actually get a very dynamic game with multiple fronts and strategic decisions (UK, US, and Jap must split resources more, Germany becomes the dominant Axis player rather than Japan)

-In one fell swoop, you automatically correct for game balance PLUS you make the game a LOT more fun to play  The game becomes more about Germany getting to Moscow and Japan holding their own in the Pacific

-The game also becomes a lot more competitive.  When you’re playing a simple push game, there is very little strategic decision making.  You just buy the units and move them to your target.  I’d say these games are about 80% dice rolls, 20% real strategy.  With a UK IC in Asia/Pacific, you increase the number of fronts and tough resource decisions, making the game more like 60% strategy, 40% dice.

-Anyways guys, that’s my take on the whole thing.  I really think we need to start thinking out of the box when it comes to this whole bidding and balance thing.  Thanks

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.

Wow! 

OK, some responses…

1. Standard bid for units vs. the half IC

-Agreed, a standard bid does balance the game, however, assuming most bids get placed in Egypt or the Eastern Front (for Russia), the bid does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to alter the game’s playout - you will still get monster Japan racing to Moscow vs. Allies racing to Berlin

-When I mention wanting a game with more Historical Accuracy, I specifically would like to see 2 things
A. UK being involved in either the Pacific or Asian theaters (ie. not 100% vs. Germany)
B. An actual battle of the Atlantic
-These are 2 major fronts that get ignored in an OOTB game of AA50 with optimal play
-The half IC rule helps to accomplish both because it strengthens UKs Pacific/Asian aspirations, while weakening them in the Atlantic giving Germany more of a chance

Bottom Line: Standard Bid addresses Game Balance but does not address Game Playout.  The Half IC addresses Game Balance and helps to create a more Historical Playout.

The Canada IC option was meant more for strategic options.  If one sees Germany going Heavy Atlantic or that Japan is too much of a threat to India AND Australia on UK1, then a Canadian IC becomes an alternative.  Any other potential UK IC placements would disrupt balance

@squirecam:

Then what you posted initially is not what you really wanted after all. Your main point was historical accuracy, and the “boring” allies to berlin and Japan v. Russia.

Yet your #1 fix is –-- place a UK IC which can go into Canada. Please tell me how this placement aids in fixing the “history” issues.

Note : it doesnt.

There is a simple “historical” fix to your initial issue. It forces your group to think outside the box. After you have played with it, you will find other ways to win, after which, you will no longer need the rule.

I’d also note you insist on NO’s, which is an admitted cause of the “axis advantage” you dont like. But AR already noted that above.

@cousin_joe:

I think though, that there are enough smart players on this website, much smarter than the people who actually made the game, that we should be able to come up with just 1 or 2 house rules that fix this inherent flaw in the game

I also think you owe Larry an apology for this.

IC in Canada is for strategic options with the other rules listed
The numbers 1,2 and 3 I list are not intended to indicate importance.  I value all 3 of historical accuracy, strategic options, and variation in playout.  If any, I would say I value strategic options the most.  Strategically, in AA50s, Germany can play a strong Atlantic and if UK sees this, an IC in Canada could be useful

As far as the comment, my definite apologies to Mr. Harris, as I wasn’t quite clear.  I meant from a strategic standpoint.  Mr. Harris himself has admitted on at least a couple of forums over the years he is not the best player at playing his games.  More strategic players can see the OOTB game’s opening setup design flaw that makes a UK India/Australia IC untenable.

For the next turn only Bardoly
Half the damage can be repaired immediately, the rest could be repaired the following turn

This is why a player researching the Atomic Tech would have to be very careful about when they research it and most likely, should research it in advance just to guarantee it will be available when they need it
If the dropping of the bomb isn’t properly timed with the attack, the defending nation could recover fairly easily
(eg. on turn they are hit with the bomb, they could still repair what damage they can, develop Tech, produce units at other ICs, buy new ICs or save their money for a big buy the following turn)

@Imperious:

if you want KISS, then:

Any German or Italian Battleship or Cruiser outside Baltic or Medd. cost the British or American player 3 IPC, Each Sub, Carrier, Or Destroyer costs them 2 IPC each. The allies decide who pays and the cost can be shared between them. If the axis place a bomber in a sea zone, they can also soak off 2 IPC, or 1 IPC for a fighter as long as its outside Baltic and Medd.

Also, Each American or British submarine adjacent to any original axis controlled territory costs them 1 IPC each.

I wouldn’t say this is KISS - it’s much more complex tham the original idea proposed
I appreciate the suggestion Imperious but your angle is History first, with Strategy & Simplicity secondary
I think your rules fit well with a game concerned more with Historical and Tactical Realism
The problem is that these rules are neither simple or as strategic as they can be

My angle is more Strategic Options and Simplicity over History
I prefer to value these first 2 game features much more, with history being included but not at the cost of strategy or simplicity

@oztea:

This is just silly
Germany does not get increased Industrial Production within germany for putting subs in the water

I suggested this method for simplicity’s sake
The alternative would be a UK National Objective that would cost UK 5 IPCs if a German SUB was in one of those SZs

The other reason I suggest this design, was I wanted Germany to get MORE IPCs than what they get in a standard game
Currently, with good players playing, Germany doesn’t have enough material to threaten Russia
This NO as written can give Germany some easy early IPCs (and potentially continued IPCs assuming they keep SUB production going) to become more of a threat to Russia

With AA50s, the idea is for Germany to threaten Russia, not Japan
To do this, Germany must get stronger

National objectives cant work like this, they arent doggie treats to incentivise a power into playing historicly, that is a side effect.

A national objective is what that power wanted to accomplish, the IPC bonus reflects both the addition of territory and resources, as well as national pride when it is acomplished

Putting subs in the water just doesnt do this.

These statements couldn’t be further from the truth
A succesful sub program would be a huge motivator for Germany, and tremendously increase national pride
There are other NOs that fall along these lines and if you examine them individually, you’ll see some which have nothing at all to do with monetary value of territories taken but rather more of the pride factor (no Allied units in Russia, Japan expansion NOs, no Allied units in Med for Italy)

Re: historical play, I think this is EXACTLY what the NOs were meant to accomplish

If you want it to do something similar, and fair……

Axis subs may attack allied national objectives. An axis sub, ajacent to an allied territory that is part of an allied national objective, or contains an allied capital may negate either the national objective in question, or one of its choosing in the case of seazones adjacent to a capital. If the sub ends its turn in an eligeble seazone, the National Objective is reduced by D6 on that powers collect income phase (place damage counters in the seazone in question) if that sub also remains in the seazone during that powers collect income phase then it may also attack the territory directly, reducing that players income by D6. This second roll may not exceed the value of the territory.

To put it simply…you cant give germany IPCs for blowing up allied cargo, thats just silly.
Instead, let the axis attack both IPCs like in pacific 40, and attack National Objectives, that represent shipping.

This is very inconsistent with how NOs work
NOs are simply a +5 IPC income boost for achieving something, no dice rolls should be involved plus the way you have it designed is much more confusing than it needs to be

@squirecam:

And of course, the one playout I detest the most… Japan pushes to Moscow  :roll:

1. No allied units can enter USSR territory unless Moscow falls.
2. Japan can not attack USSR unless USSR attacks Japan first.

Problem solved.

I’m not a big fan of these hard and fast rules
It limits strategic options too much so
I’d rather see rules that would penalize either party for breaking the treaty, but not completely disallow it
In Enhanced, we had a 4INF penalty (either added to attacked territory or home territory) which actually deterred an attack a lot of the time but still allowed for the possibility if needed

In this game, a Russian owned Buryatia can be a major thorn in Japan’s side as it serves as a landing place for US Air interested in attacking Japans home fleet
In a lot of games, it’s very important for Japan to try and take Bury as soon as they are able
So again, a reason why I’m not a fan of the firm “No Attacking each other at all” rule

Sorry, I should have been more clear
A loaded BMBR could still move about the map but would be designated as “The” BMBR that carries the atomic bomb
It would not be allowed to participate in any other combat or NCM other than the SBR on it’s final target

so for example, let’s say US rolls for the Atomic Bomb on Turn 5
On turn 5, US misses but they can move a BMBR to WEUS so that as of the 2nd time it rolls, the BMBR will be ready to be loaded and fly off
On turn 6, US succeeds and so the BMBR in WUS gets loaded with the A-bomb and can flies to Midway
On turn 7, The BMBR attacks Japan and does 4d6 damage of only which 1/2 can be repaired on Japan’s next turn.  US should also position themselves to attack on turn 8 (as Japan will not be able to add as many new builds)