Posts made by cousin_joe

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)

@axis_roll:

OK, initial thoughts.

Disclaimer:
Need to game play test this before any real judgements are made

1).  Wow.  Lots of changes to the game:  Tech system, Tech’s themselves, NOs, etc.
2).  What about NO’s in AA50s?  Are they now standard? 
3).  How about new Tech system, standard or optional?
4).  Optional rules:  Closing Dardenelles?  Is this still optional? 
      I would think it needs to be open as the new rules seem to give the allies a better chance in the game.
5).  Did you consider the detuning of HB’s (RE: best of two dice) in your tech costs?
6).  While I do like the intent of the rule changes in AA50s, just not so sure they are 100% needed just yet.  Allied play is improving in the area of learning how to control Godzilla (Japanese Monster).  Also, if you don’t like the monsters that Germany and Japan can become in the game, try playing WITHOUT the NOs.  Recall that the NO’s are OPTIONAL rules.  This becomes a very different (albeit longer) game.
7).  There’s a lot of changes (did I say that already?).

It is nice to see something started from the AARe creator.  Perhaps my initial thoughts are premature.  As we’ve always said when creating / tweaking AARe, game play testing is the only way to truely test any new rule ideas.

1. At an absolute minimum, I would love to just see the pre-placed IC in UK as per the parameters I mention
I think we as a community short-change ourselves by playing with the standard rules with the old, boring Allies to Berlin, Japan to Moscow playout
If we created a lot of support for just this one change, I would be happy as it would fix the playout and historical accuracy problems.

The 2nd thing I would like to see adopted is the Tech development rules.  Tech in it’s current state is just not suitable for a competitive game.  Too much is left to chance and strategy gets thrown out the window.  Tech needs to be directed with more appropriate risk-benefit ratios.

Beyond that, the new techs are just gravy in the sense of increasing strategic options.  I find games much more enjoyable when there are more strategic options available.  Are they absolutely necessary?  Probably not, but they would definitely make the game better.

2. Most popular game option would appear to be 1941 scenario, with NOs and so yes, I would see these as standard.

3. As per 1, I think the Tech Development rules suggested here make Tech playable (for competitve games) and as close to the OOTB rules as possible while doing so.

4. I totally dislike this rule to begin with
It would definitely NOT be part of A&A strategic.

5. Here’s my take on it
For AA50strategic, I would like to keep as many of the original rules the same as possible, including the base 12 Techs in the game and then just price them accordingly based on their as-written strength
-This maintains familiarity with the OOTB version
-Where I’m OK with things changing is any new techs we bring in.  These can be whatever we like, but each needs to have a strategic/counter-strategic reason for bringing it in.

6. Again, I think the NOs do add a lot to the game and are one of defining characteristics of an Anniversary game.  Their inclusion would be a MUST.
-I’m sure the Allies can incorporate some tactics to “control” the Japanese monster, but these are at the abandonment of other theaters (Africa/Russia).  The game just feels like it was MEANT to be played with a 2nd UK IC.  The problem is that the playtesters/developers made a MAJOR oversight in the game’s initial setup which almost completely removes this possibility

7. If you have the time axis_roll (or anyone else for that matter), I would like to playtest just core rule #1

**AA50: Strategic - Core Rule Change #1

-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)**

I’ve already playtested on my own potential openings and responses for both Axis and Allies but would certainly be willing to show you what this single rule can do.
I believe this rule would work best with Directed Tech (14 IPC to try and increase Ind or Aus production quickly) but would be willing to just have a No Tech game to keep it simple
I’d be perfectly fine with whatever turn rate you would like, and would also be fine with even just going a couple rounds to get a rough idea of potential playout (instead of whole game)

P.S. If you’re up for adding in just the Original 12 Techs but in directed form, that would make for an even better evaluation of the AA50strategic rules

Exactly
I did think about that but forgot to clarify it
The INF would not get to pull back a space with the ARM

Hi i rock

Nope, it’s only meant to be used once and cannot be re-researched
The strategic aspect here is to even up the odds against an enemy that’s stacking it’s capital
Classically, defenders have always had the edge over attackers
Players can always go conventional, and maybe go more HB, or regular bombers to use for that final attack, or they can go with something like this

To be honest, I’m a bit borderline about it’s inclusion in the game (a lot of overlap with HB strategic funtion) and could get rid of it if not very popular.

Wow, great thread guys! That was fun to read  :-)

For me, the Number One problem with this game (1941 scenario), is that UK does not and can not have a viable IC in either India or Australia at game start.  This is where the chain of events starts…

UK can’t place IC –> Japan is relatively unopposed and becomes a Monster --> Allies forced to go for Berlin --> Germany turtles --> Japan goes for Moscow

It’s clear the game was poorly playtested/developed since this is the initial setup that made it to production.  It’s been over a year now, and they had a chance to correct it with the optional rules but didn’t (instead we got Dardanelles and Escort/Interceptor Rules).

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’ve started a thread in the House Rules section for this effort and would appreciate you guys stopping by.  The general idea though is to actually make a UK Asia/Pacific IC viable in the 1941 scenario.  If we can find a way to do this, then we fix the game on our own.  I think the A&A community deserves this.

Hi guys,

I’ve played a lot of straight up games (no bid) and Axis is clearly favoured
Personally though, I would like to see something other than your standard Egypt/Eastern Front bid placements as these do nothing to correct what I see as the MAJOR FLAW with A&A50.  Specifically, I’m tired of the old “Will Allies get to Berlin before Japan gets to Moscow?” playout.

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)

-Now 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 :-)  Anyone whose played AAR: Enhanced wll know what I mean as we incorporated a similar rule to keep UK in Asia/Pacific.  The results were very successful as the game was a lot more enjoyable than regular Revised.

-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 thing.  Thanks  :-)

Hey Guys,

I’ve been scouting the after Action Reports and I’m reading a lot of the same things…

For the No Tech games, 1941 scenario:

1.  UK trying to place an India IC is a lost cause
-It’s just too difficult to defend
2. Japan, played correctly, typically becomes a MONSTER!!!
-I have a J1 opening that basically destroys most of the Allied Pacific fleet, positions for a fork move on India or Australia J2, and gets Japan all 15IPCs of their NO money
3. There is no Battle of the Atlantic
-German Navy usually gone on UK1
4. Germany can push early, but more often than not, Russia can hold
-Germany is too weak, and UK can apply too much back pressure
5. USA is mostly forced to go 100% Pacific
-They can never really get to Japan though, and if they abandon for Europe, then the game boils down to that same old “Can Allies get to Germany before Japan gets to Moscow fiasco”  :roll:

For the Tech Games, either scenario"

1. It’s a virtual Crapshoot!!!  
-basically you spin the wheel and see if you can get lucky

Now I know some of you don’t mind playing A&A like this, but for those of you who want a game with a more historical playout, and a more strategic form of Tech, I’d suggest checking out AA50: Strategic in the House Rules section (see signature below for link)

Hi guys, count me in  :-)
I see that the tournament is a No Tech affair, which I completely agree with, but if any of you wanted to contribute to a set of house rules (like we did with AAR:Enhanced for the Revised edition) that makes Techs actually useable for competitive play, and fixes some of the games flaws (cough Monster Japan cough) then I’d check out AA50: Strategic in the House Rules section.  Thanks.  :-)

1. DarthMaximus
2. BigRedOne
3. cts17
4. hobo
5. Battlingmaxo
6. U-505
7. Amon Sûl
8. Bigbadgoo
9. souL
10. SpiralArchitect
11. axis_roll
12. Bardoly
13. Funcioneta
14. Yoshi
15. Pin
16. Zhukov4
17. Mistergreen
18. DY
19. Chunksoul
20. Joe Cold
21. anchovy
22. ksmckay
23. Gharen
24. TheDesertJournalist
25. Zygmund
26. DutchmanD
27. SilverAngelSurfer
28. mojo
29. cousin_joe

As you know, AA50 removed the old National Advantages from Revised.  However, we can get that old AARe feel by converting some of those old NAs into Techs.  This is truly where AA50: Strategic will outshine the OOTB version (Increased Historical Accuracy, Improved Variation of Playout, and Widened Strategic Options).  Again, these techs are not set in stone and can be changed or added to if needed.

RUSSIA

1. 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)

-good counter to Rockets and strong German advances towards Karelia or Caucasus.

UNITED STATES

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

-some much needed support for the US Navy

2. HEAVY TRANSPORTS (Moderate Tech, 7IPC/researcher)
-Your TRNs can now transport either 3INF or 2INF + 1ARM/RTL/AA or 2ARM/RTL/AA

• improved logistics for late-game

3. MASS AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (Moderate Tech, 7IPC/researcher)
-Your Air units are now cheaper to build.  FTRs cost 8IPC.  BMBRs cost 10IPC.

-will slow down your initial builds though will definitely make up for it later on

UNITED KINGDOM

1. ROYAL AIR FORCE (Minor Tech, 5IPC/researcher)
-Your FTRs defend at 5

-useful for defence

2. 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 kind of torn whether this should be a minor or moderate but the premise is simple.  Allies have an added incentive to target France.  Good counter against Atalntic Wall as well
-I’m hoping the game will follow a more historical route of France as the site of Allied support, rather than Karelia

So that’s all for the new Allied Techs.  Would appreicate your comments on balance, wording, or any improvements.  Thanks.

As you know, AA50 removed the old National Advantages from Revised.  However, we can get that old AARe feel by converting some of those old NAs into Techs.  This is truly where AA50: Strategic will outshine the OOTB version (Increased Historical Accuracy, Improved Variation of Playout, and Widened Strategic Options).  Again, these techs are not set in stone and can be changed or added to if needed.

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.

-This is your Battle of the Atlantic gentlemen.  For 10IPC, Germany can wreak some havoc and actually have some decent odds of their subs surviving for a while (esp. coupled with the new German NO)

2. ATLANTIC WALL (Moderate Tech, 7IPC/researcher)
-ALL Axis INF and RTL in France, NW Europe, and Finland defend on a 3
-Allied naval units cannot enter SZ 5 unless they control both Finland and NW Europe at the start of their turn.  Naval units that may have started in SZ 5 may leave but cannot re-enter.

-This Tech can open up some nice new naval and sub strategies for Germany though at the cost of being less agressive against Russia.

3. PANZERBLITZ (Moderate Tech, 7IPC/Researcher)
If your attacking forces destroy all defending units in a territory in one cycle of combat, any of your surviving ARM may move 1 territory during NCM. This NCM move applies even if: a) your ARM has already moved 2 spaces in Combat b) you invaded an empty territory c) you invaded a territory containing only an AAGun and/or IC d) your ARM arrived by amphibious assault

-the old favourite from Enhanced is back and allows agressive tactics against Russia.

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.

-another oldie but a goodie.  Helps Japan deal with the eventual American pressure.

**2. YAMATOS (Minor Tech, 5IPC/researcher)
-Your Battleships Attack, Defend, and Bombard at 5
-Your Battleships act as Anti-aircraft Guns do.  Only one BB per SZ may fire.  **

-this is a good naval counter for Heavy Bombers.

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.

-potentially very useful Tech depending on how Italy wants to play

So that’s all for the new Axis Techs.  Would appreicate your comments on balance, wording, or any improvements.  Thanks.  :-)

These are the new Techs that either the Axis or Allies can research.  They are added mainly for balance or strategic purposes.

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.

-After antiaircraft fire is resolved against the attacking air units, if there are any defending fighters an air battle occurs between the attacking and defending air units. This combat is resolved in the same way as a normal combat, with a few exceptions. The fighters have an attack value of 1 (2 if the attacker has the Jet Power research breakthrough) and a defense value of 2, and the bombers have no attack value. In addition, the combat lasts for only one round. After the battle, any surviving bombers proceed to carry out the raid as normal.
-Fighters participating as either an escort or a defender cannot participate in other battles during that turn. Defending interceptors must return to their original territory. If that territory is captured, the fighters may move one space to land in a friendly territory or on a friendly aircraft carrier. This movement occurs after all of the attacker’s combats have been resolved and before the attacker’s Noncombat Move phase begins. If no such landing space is available, the fighters are lost.

-Note that these 2 techs are as per the optional rules with the big difference that they must be researched rather than just having them at game start
-The general purpose of these is to increase the strategy and balance around SBRs

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

-this tech will be useful for UK and Japan against enemy sub strategies.  UK in particular can purchase cruisers that can be used for amphibs once they’ve dealt with the German sub threat.

4. AIR TRANSPORT (Moderate Tech, 7IPC/researcher)
-Your bombers may now transport up to 2 INF in noncombat.  Both the INF and the BMBR must start and end their turn in the same territory.  The BMBR can not be used for combat this turn.

-This is more useful for the US who have major logistics issues late game.  This helps.  UK and Japan can also benefit.

5. AIR BASES (Moderate Tech, 7IPC/researcher)
-Your fighters on islands (one land territory surrounded by one SZ) can now defend the adjacent SZ if attacked

-Navies are very vulnerable to Heavy Bombers.  This is a way to help defend your navies without having to spend as much on aircraft carriers.

6. ATOMIC BOMB (Ultimate Tech, 15IPC/researcher)
-once per game, you may load a single BMBR with an atomic bomb
-The BMBR can only be loaded from one of your original ICs, and must have started it’s turn there to load it.
-Once loaded, the BMBR can only be used for strategic bombing, not combat.  Roll any anti-aircraft (or interceptor) fire as normal.  If the BMBR survives, roll 4 dice to determine SBR damage.  For every 2 IPC of damage done, 1 IPC of damage is considered irrepairable on the opponent’s next turn.

-the strategic use of this weapon is to soften up an enemy stronghold prior to a final assault.  Maximum damage is 24IPC, with average being about 14IPC.  If an 8IPC capital took 14IPC damage, of which only 7 is repairable, that would mean they would only be able to produce one new unit that turn
-this technology is more high risk than heavy bombers as you only have one chance to succeed.  Plus, there is no military benefit
-before arguing this may be overpowered, please note that the effects on a country are not immediate and actually take a turn to have an effect.  Plus there is the chance to develop counters before the research is successful.

OK, so these are the new techs that all countries can research.  Thoughts?  :-)

Now for the reason why AA50: Strategic is actually strategic!

With AA50 OOTB rules, any donkey of a player can roll 5 IPC for Tech, score Heavy Bombers, and proceed to win the game.  Did he outstrategize his opponent?  No. He just got lucky.  This is why most tournaments don’t even use Tech, as it just kills the whole competitive nature of the game.

To me, this is the game’s greatest flaw, but with a few simple tweaks, I think it can actually be the game’s greatest draw.  The Tech system needs to become more strategic instead of luck-based and there are a few ways to do that:

1. Tech must be directed
2. Cost-Benefit ratio needs adjusting (ie. more powerful techs should cost more)
3. We need more Counter-Techs (for strategic and balance purposes)
4. There needs to be more cost certainly (ie, more of a guarantee you’ll get your tech in a timely manner)

Also remember, we are trying to keep changes from the original design as minimal as possible.  With that said, here is the Tech system I am proposing…

**AA50: Strategic - Core Rule Change #3

Step 1: Buy Researcher Tokens

-Each Research Token costs 5 (Minor), 7 (Moderate), 10 (Major) or 15 (Ultimate) IPCs.
-You must declare which specific technology you are rolling for
-You must buy a minimum of 2 (but no more than 4) researchers for that specific technology
-Once you have purchased a set number of researchers for a specific technology, you cannot puchase any more.

Step 2: Roll Research Dice

-If this is the first time you are rolling for a specific technology, roll one die for each researcher you have
-Success: If you roll at least one “6”, you have acheived that technology.  Discard your remaining research tokens for that technology.
-Failure: If you do not roll a “6”, your research has failed.  Keep all your researcher tokens and continue to the Purchase Units phase of the turn.

Double-Double Rule
-If you have TWO researchers, and this is the second time you are rolling for a specific technology, roll TWO dice for each researcher you have (ie. 4 dice total, this increases to 8 dice next turn, then 16, etc.)
-If you have 3 researchers, the sequence would be 3, 9, 27
-If you have 4 researchers, the sequence would be 4, 16, 64

Step 3: Mark Developments

-If your research was successful, place one of your national control markers over the appropriate advancement box.  Your development becomes effective immediately.
-You can initiate research on only one new technology each turn.  You can however, be rolling for more than one technology in a turn (roll newest one first), and more than one technology can come into play on a single turn.**

MINOR TECHS (5IPC/researcher, ie. minimum 10IPC)
-Advanced Artillery
-War Bonds

MODERATE TECHS (7IPC/researcher, ie. minimum 14IPC)
-Increased Factory Production
-Super Submarines
-Improved Shipyards

MAJOR TECHS (10IPC/researcher, ie. minimum 20IPC)
-Rockets
-Paratroopers
-Jet Fighters
-Radar

ULTIMATE TECHS (15IPC/researcher, ie. minimum 30IPC)
-Mechanized Infantry
-Long Range Aircraft
-Heavy Bombers

-Note that the longer you have been rolling for a tech, the more likely it is to come into play.  Also, more researchers equals more likelihood of the tech coming sooner
-Also note that the high-end techs are very pricy, and are more meant for late-game use. 
-Now before you say some of these are unbalanced, please bear in mind there are a lot more techs and counter-techs to come (6 Global, 6 Axis-specific, and 6 Allied-specific).  Once you see these, you’ll see the true nature of AA50: Strategic!

For now though, I’d appreciate just general comments on this specific tech system especially compared to what’s out there currently.  Thanks!  :-)

Any competent German player knows to try and destroy as much of the UK fleet as possible on G1.  Unfortunately, Germany’s navy then likely faces extinction on UK1 and then that’s pretty much the end of the Battle of the Atlantic as far as AA50 OOTB is concerned  :roll:

Now, there are a few different ways to address this game defect, but I think the most simple is simply the following National Objective for Germany:

**AA50: Strategic - Core Rule Change #2

-Gain 5IPCs if Axis Powers have at  least 1 sub in any of the following territories: SZ 1-4, 6-9, and 12.**

-The easy way to think of this is any SZ within 2 spaces of UK except for the Baltic SZ
-This wording is consistent with the other NOs, and is restricted to just Germany for simplicity sake.
-The idea here is to encourage some German sub production.  The next obvious question is that why would Germany produce subs if they are still so vulnerable.  This will be adressed later with some of the tech rules.  For now, I’d appreciate some feedback on the rule in general and the SZ restrictions.  Thanks.  :-)

The very first game I played of A&A: Anniversary Ediiton, I remember thinking that this game would have been much better with a pre-placed UK IC in India.  From reading the forums, this seems to be the general consensus.  A UK IC in India would do many things to improve the games’ playout…

-UK helps to keep Japan in check
-Japan doesn’t become a MONSTER
-UK doesn’t get to go 100% against Germany
-Germany actually has a chance of taking out Moscow
-US doesn’t need to be 100% committed against Japan and can help in the Atlantic

As we saw in AAR: Enhanced, these are the funnest types of games to play.  Players are forced with tough decisions on how to divide their limited resources and there is action on multiple fronts.  Now the question for AA50: Strategic is, how can we get a pre-placed IC for UK in a fair and balanced way.

As the game now stands, placing an IC in India on UK1 is a major mistake as it is too difficult to defend vs. a competent Japanese player.  On the flip side, simply just saying UK starts with an IC there would definitely tilt the balance too much in the Allies’ favour.  As a start, I would propose the following:

**AA50: Strategic - Core Rule Change #1

-On UK1 only, during the Purchase Units phase, UK may purchase a “Limited IC” for placement in either India, or Australia.  
-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)**

-The idea here is that UK will be able to purchase 2-3 units in India or Australia before Japan 2 making these areas much more defendable for the long-term.  The units are limited to ground units for balance purposes (no aircraft or boats).
-I’d be comfortable with the initial cost being 5-10 IPC, 8 seemed about right as it’s more than half the full IC cost.  This can be tweaked for balance or even possibly used for the bidding process.
-I’ve excluded Egypt and South Africa for balance reasons.  I had considered Canada at one point but eliminated it as the goal is to encourage action in the Pacific/SE Asia
-I’m sure there are some other aspects that might need clarification and we can deal with those as they come up.

These items are all up for debate though and I’d appreciate your thoughts.  Thanks. :-)

Hey axis_roll,

I’ve been looking at this Tech via a Point System thing again and just wanted to offer a little more feedback.

Advantages of the System
1. I defnitely agree that Tech needs to be Directed (only makes sense, in a game of strategy)
2. I’d also agree, thet the better Techs should cost more
3. Also, I agree that you should be able to research more than one tech at a time

Disadvantages of the System
1. One disadavantage I see, is that players can still “buy” a Tech in one turn.  If a player is planning an attack and needs a certain Tech to help it succeed, he can spend enough IPC to pretty much guarantee that Tech, which of course is cheived instantly.  This can be gamebreaking especially when capitals are involved. 
2. As you know, I’m not a big fan of tracking points.  Players have always been used to that dynamic of “If you roll a 6, you get the Tech”.  I’d be in favor of preserving this dynamic as much as possible.

So what’s the alternative you ask?  :-D
Well, I do have something in mind, but I’ll bring in it up in a new thread  :-)

Okay, so Axis & Allies the Anniversary Edition has been out for over a year and these seem to be the general observations…

1. The 1941 scenario is highly unbalanced in favor of the Axis
2. The playout is very typical.  German navy is pretty much nonexistent after UK1 (no battle of Atlantic).  Germany is able to push to Russia early but eventually stalls due to Russian builds and UK back pressure.  UK applies 100% pressure to Germany as Ind/Aus IC too high risk.  Japan becomes a MONSTER.  US goes almost 100% Pacific just to keep Japan in check.  And of course, the one playout I detest the most… Japan pushes to Moscow  :roll:
3. The Tech System is completely unplayable for competitive games.  Games can be decided on a single tech roll basically throwing any notion of strategy out the window, hence your standard No Tech tournaments.

Now, some of you may be familiar with AAR: Enhanced, a variant we created for the Revised Edition of A&A.  When designing AARe, we stuck with 3 main principles, and I would like to try and keep these in mind when trying to address the issues with AA50.  Specifically, these were:

1. Increased Historical Accuracy
2. Increased Variation of Playout
3. Increased Strategic Options

The other thing I would like to do, is to keep any Core Rule changes to an absolute minimum.  While AARe was fun to play, there were a lot of added rules that could make it intimidating for new players.  With AA50: Strategic, I’m hoping players can just quickly glance over the rules and be ready to play immediately.  With that said, AA50: Strategic is being limited to 3 Core Rule Changes.  I’ll mention them here briefly for now, but will open up some new threads to discuss them in more detail.

1. Pre-placed IC for UK which can produce units on UK1
2. NO to encourage German sub production (along with some tech changes to improve survivability)
3. Improved Tech system to allow for competitive gaming and increased strategic options

Finally, AARe became a successful variant due to all the feedback and playtesting from everyone involved.  The ideas that follow are mostly just starting points and are certainly not set in stone.  With your help though, I’m hoping we can correct the deficiencies of the Out-of-the-Box version and make AA50: Strategic the best way to play A&A!  Thanks.