Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. cousin_joe
    3. Posts
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 12
    • Posts 114
    • Best 0
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by cousin_joe

    • RE: Tech via a Point System

      The only other thing to consider if allowing Directed Tech is the “Tech coming into effect instantly” aspect.  I don’t think Directed Tech and Instant Tech could co-exist in the same game.  You would have to change it so that Tech comes into effect the next turn.

      I’ve always disliked Instant Tech because not only does a player get lucky on you by getting HB on some miraculous roll for a ridiculously low price, but he adds insult to injury by totally skewing battle odds on various fronts (particularly Naval) before you have a chance to react.  It just throws strategy further out the window.

      This effect was somewhat minimized though by Tech being Random.  A player couldn’t necessarily buy a whole bunch of HBs knowing he was getting HBs. With Directed Tech that changes, and a player’s whole gameplan could revolve around getting HBs and building up to this.  Therefore, to cancel this possibility, if allowing Directed tech, Tech should come into effect the following turn.

      posted in House Rules
      cousin_joeC
      cousin_joe
    • RE: Tech via a Point System

      Hi axis_roll,

      My initial proposal was geared more towards simplicity
      Basically you’re allowing directed tech but requiring multiple tech hits for the more powerful techs
      Progress could be simply tracked with markers rather than keeping track of numbers on the side or memorizing charts with numbers needed for success

      With that said, I have no problem with the Tech by Points system
      The only Tweaks I would suggest would be subdivide into Minor, Moderate, and Major
      Paratroopers could be moved to Major as per subotai’s post
      Then use the following point scheme…

      Minor - 10 points
      Moderate - 20 points
      Major - 30 Points

      I would also suggest limiting research to one Tech at a time as per OOTB rules
      This would make more incentive for players to buy more researchers (ie. to get techs faster so they can move on to another tech)

      posted in House Rules
      cousin_joeC
      cousin_joe
    • RE: Tech via a Point System

      Just to expand on this idea a bit further…

      One can look at allowing Shared Tech…
      If an Ally achieves a Tech, you could allow alliance members to research the Tech for 4IPC/researcher rather than 5 IPC

      Also, one can look at adding some other Techs to the game
      Basically you would just need to classify it as Minor, Moderate or Major
      I think an Interceptor Tech would be nice, maybe also something to make Subs less vulnerable, and also Navies less vulnerable late game (to HBs)

      Finally, there’s room to have Country Specializations (ie. a country can research a Tech for 4IPC/researcher right off the bat).  This could be to direct the flow of the game in a certain way (historically or strategically) or make up for inherent in-game deficincies.  I would suggest the following…

      Germany - Industrial Capacity (game shorts them on production to begin with, natural HB protection, still pay full price for Mech Inf)
      Italy - Paratroopers (I know they have no BMBR but some historic/strategic implications for this)
      Japan - Super Subs (historic/strategic implications)
      Russia - Advanced Artillery (historic/strategic implications)
      UK - Shipyards (historic/strategic implications)
      USA - War Bonds (economic edge, make them still pay full for HB,LRA)

      Thoughts?

      posted in House Rules
      cousin_joeC
      cousin_joe
    • RE: Tech via a Point System

      Hi guys,

      I’ve only managed to play a handful of games of the Anniversary Edition but axis_roll asked my opinion on Tech via a point system

      First of all, I completely agree the OOTB Tech system is completely FLAWED and lacks ANY Strategic Value
      A Strategic Tech system should allow players to choose the Tech they go for, rather than just acquiring it randomly

      So with that said, I do agree with Directed Tech, but I do think there’s an easier way to implement it than with the point system…

      Basically, keep Tech exactly the way it is, except that when buying researchers, a player must state which Tech they are going for.
      Techs are divided into 3 categories:

      Minor Tech:
      -War Bonds
      -Advanced Artillery
      -Super Subs

      Moderate Tech:
      -Paratrooper
      -Industrial Capacity
      -Shipyards
      -Radar
      -Jet Fighters

      Major Tech:
      -Mechanized Infantry
      -Rockets
      -Long Range Aicraft
      -Heavy Bombers

      Now here’s the kicker…
      Minor Techs succeed on a single hit (ie. 1 roll of ‘6’, just like normal)
      Moderate Techs require two hits (ie. 2 rolls of ‘6’, in total, before they become active)
      Major Techs require three hits (ie. 3 rolls of ‘6’, in total, before they become active)

      So for example, Player A wants to go for Heavy Bombers
      He buys 2 researchers to start (10IPC), realizing that it is impossible though to get HB right away
      On Turn 1, he rolls 2,4 - no good.  He plans to add 1 researcher for next round (5IPC)
      On Turn 2, he rolls 1,2,6* - that counts as 1 hit, he still doesn’t get HB though
      On Turn 3, he rolls 3,4,5
      On Turn 4, he rolls 1,4,6* - that’s a 2nd hit, still no HB yet.  He really wants HB next turn though and plans to buy 2 more researchers (10IPC)
      On Turn 5, he rolls 2,4,4,5,6* - SUCCESS!  He now gets HB for 25IPC Round 5 (later, and more expensive than OOTB rules)

      Advantages:
      -This would be a very simple system to implement (rather than counting points)
      -The stronger Techs would generally take longer to get (because they require multiple Tech hits)
      -The stronger Techs would be more expensive to get (assuming the player is willing to buy more than 1 researcher to get the Tech in decent time)
      -Tech is Directed, making the Tech component of the game much more strategic
      -Counter-Tech is also Directed again increasing the Strategy of the game (ie. IC to counter HB)
      -Furthermore, if players know someone is going for a specific Tech, they can employ countermeasures in terms of purchases as well

      I think Tech can be taken further strategically, but if you’re looking for a real simple solution, this would be a start.

      posted in House Rules
      cousin_joeC
      cousin_joe
    • RE: AA50 Enhanced: Sub Rules

      1. Re: complexity, I think this system is better than the old detection roll.  You actually had to roll more dice for that one.
      Now it’s just a simple question (whether on attack or defense)…

      Are the SUBs by themselves or with other units?
      …If with other units, then normal rules apply.
      …If by themselves, then SUBS are stealthed and only DDs, FTRs and BMBRs can roll against them @2 each

      On Defense, surviving SUBs can submerge instead of rolling for defense
      On Attack, only 2 SUBs Max can Strategic Sinking Raid, at a roll of 3 each

      I don’t know how it could get any simpler

      2. No, I’ve included WUS (see 1)

      3. This is debatable.  I think we trade Capital ICs only (+WUS), which would mean less IPC dmg, for inclusion of submerged SUBs, which would mean more IPC dmg.  It’s also much simpler this way, especially when phrasing the CRD rule as an NO.

      ie. UK National Objective - “Keep all SUBs out of UK waters”
      -2 IPC for SUBs in SZs 2,3,6,7,8
      -1 IPC for SUBs in SZs 1,4,5,9,12

      posted in House Rules
      cousin_joeC
      cousin_joe
    • RE: A&ARe (Enhanced) tech rules in AA50

      @axis_roll:

      En Masse, especially in the pacific where there’s room to spread them out, a USA sub strategy can be quite deadly.  It certainly makes he Japanese fleet consolidate for protection.  Use this in conjunction with a small carrier fleet and a bomber or two and Japan really has to be cautious about venturing out in small fleets.

      Limiting the IJN’s movement can really limit their expansion.  Thing is, US needs to do this early.  LAter on it might be too late as then Japan can plop down ICs in India / East Indies and move the fleet home.  Now it’s a must tougher going for USA to put pressure on Japan.

      Couldn’t agree with you more roll

      Subs are OVERPOWERED in the Pacific (for the US)
      Subs are UNDERPOWERED in the Atlantic (for Germany)

      I’ve seen US buy mostly SUBs and FTRs and basically keep Japan from getting anywhere near Hawaii
      Then these aircraft fly to Australia and it makes things even worse for Japan
      Japan is basically just forced to consolidate it’s fleet
      The combination of SUBs and Aircraft can totally dominate the Pacific
      In terms of “bang for the buck”, Subs and Air totally outclass Capital Ships - it’s not even close

      Throw in possible upgrades to Heavy Bombers, Jet Fighters, Super Subs, and Naval Shipyards (Subs at 5IPC) and the balance gets even worse

      Personally, what I would like to see is SUBs getting nerfed in the military department, but boosted in the economic department
      Some eg. would be…

      Naval Shipyards do not apply to SUBs
      Super Subs does not boost military attack, only economic attack
      More Economic attacks for SUBs (CRs, Strategic Sinking Raids as per SUB thread)

      SUBs should only be there to complement you navy, not be the backbone of your navy
      However, due to their cost efficiency, esp. for the US, this is what I’m seeing in the Pacific

      posted in House Rules
      cousin_joeC
      cousin_joe
    • RE: AA50 Enhanced: Sub Rules

      OK, some slight modifications here…

      1. Convoy Raid Damage as in Enhanced
      -submerged subs count, capital ICs only + WUS (we want to encourage, not discourage new ICs, also simpler)

      2. Whenever a SUB is due to roll (either in attack or defence), it ALWAYS has the option to submerge instead
      -opposing DDs still cancel 1st strike, however, they do not cancel a SUBs ability to submerge
      -SUBs would still have to endure at least 1 round of combat if a DD is present (but at least not multiple rounds)

      3. SUBs in a SZ by themselves(ie. no other surface vessels), are considered to be in Stealth mode
      -In Stealth mode, SUBs are only vulnerable to DDs, and Aircraft at a reduced attack
      -An Attack can only be rolled if there is an attacking DD present (otherwise SUBs can just choose to instantly submerge)
      -The Attacking Force rolls for a Sub Sweep:
      –-Each Attacking DD, FTR and BMBR rolls 1d@2
      —Every Hit results in a SUB being Destroyed
      —Each Surviving SUB has the option to submerge, or roll 1d@1 on Defence
      —If the SUBs do not submerge, and the Atacking DD survives, the SUBs must undergo another round of attacks
      Note that other surface vessels and enemy SUBs do not attack, and that aircraft roll at a reduced attack.  This gives the SUB increased survivability

      4. Strategic Sinking Raids
      -This is a special economic attack whereby SUBs can strike specifically at TRNs even if they are in a fleet
      -Only 2SUBs/TURN may attempt this attack
      -The SUBs are considered to be in stealth mode, and thus again, are only vulnerable to DDs, and FTRs at a reduced defence
      -Defending Force must have at least one TRN
      -The Defending Force rolls for a Sub Screen:
      –-Each Defending DD and FTR rolls 1d@2 (FTRs can only roll if a DD is present)
      —Every Hit results in a SUB being Destroyed
      —All Surviving SUBs roll 1d@3 (benefit of being undetected)
      —Every Hit results in a TRN being Destroyed
      The reason I’m trying to push for this rule, is to give germany some way to slow down UK.  UK gets so much more income now, Convoy Raids alone are not going to affect them that much.  The other thing is that Allies can build up fo coastal bombardment so quickly now and it’s very difficult for Germany to get any type of fleet to counter.  Currently, once the UK fleet is big enough, German SUBs are pretty much useless (not to already say they’re useless before that because they’re so vulnerable)

      5. Techs
      Super Sub Tech would decrease DD,FTR Def to 1 and DD, FTR, BMBR Att to 1 on Sub Screen and Sub Sweep respectively
      -Super Subs would roll 1d@4 on Strategic Sinking Raids
      -Super Sub Tech would not give any benefit to SUBs in regular combat.  SUBs in general are quite strong in the Pacific actually when combined with lots of Aircraft.  This combo owns Surface Ships right now and I think the OOTB version of Super Subs makes it even worse.

      Sonar Tech (possibly part of Radar/Sonar Tech) would increase Destroyer Def and Att to 3 on both Sub Screen and Sub Sweep
      -it would also allow Cruisers to be involved, with Def and Att of 3 on both Sub Screen and Sub Sweep (Cruisers could also detect SUBs like DDs do)

      LRA Tech would increase FTR Def and FTR, BMBR Att to 2 on Sub Screen and Sub Sweep respectively
      -obviously if countering Techs were in play, they would cancel each other out

      OK, a couple of name changes to make things more clear
      Also boosted the attack and defense numbers for aircraft
      The higher number of Aircraft in the Pacific will still keep SUBs vulnerable there
      I think this system is much cleaner than the old detection rolls in AARe (DDs basically had to roll twice there)

      posted in House Rules
      cousin_joeC
      cousin_joe
    • RE: AA50 Enhanced: Sub Rules

      OK guys, let me run this by you.  I’m trying to keep these rules as simple as possible…

      1. Convoy Raid Damage as in Enhanced
      -submerged subs now count, only capital ICs though (+WUS) - streamlining the rules

      2. WHENEVER a SUB is due to roll (either in attack or defence), it ALWAYS has the option to submerge instead
      -note the word ALWAYS.  What this means is, is that at most, a SUB would only have to endure 1 round of opposing rolls (Currently, they are forced to stay surfaced every round as long as an opposing DD is in play)
      -DDs still delay the SUBs roll til later in the round, however, the SUBs can submerge even if the DD is present (just not immediately at the start of combat)
      -This will significantly increase SUB survival

      3. Special Convoy Interdiction Attack
      -This is a special economic attack whereby SUBs can strike specifically at TRNs even if they are in a fleet
      -Attacking Force must consist only of SUBs
      -Defending Force must have at least one TRN
      -Defending Force rolls for a Sub Screen:
      –-Each Defending DD rolls 1d@2, Each Defending FTR rolls 1d@1
      —Every Hit results in a SUB being Destroyed
      —All Surviving SUBs roll 1d@3
      —Every Hit results in a TRN being Destroyed
      I am debating limiting this to Max 2 SUBs/TURN

      4. Special Deep Dive Defence
      -Whenever a Defending Force consists only of SUBs (ie. no other surface vessels), the SUBs are considered to be in Deep Dive mode
      -In Deep Dive mode, SUBs are only vulnerable to DDs, and Aircraft at a reduced attack
      -Defending Force must consist only of SUBs
      -Attacking Force must have at least one DD
      -Attacking Force rolls for a Sub Sweep:
      –-Each Attacking DD rolls 1d@2, Each attacking FTR or BMBR rolls 1d@1
      —Every Hit results in a SUB being Destroyed
      —Each Surviving SUB has the option to submerge, or roll 1d@1
      —If the SUBs do not submerge, and the Atacking DD survives, the SUBs must undergo another round of attacks
      This would greatly increase SUB survivability as CAs,ACs, and BBs do not get to roll in attack, and Aircraft is rolling at a reduced rate.  In the Pacific, where there are a lot of FTRs anyway, it would help create that happy medium we are looking for

      5. Techs
      Super Sub Tech would decrease Detroyer Def and Att to 1 on both Sub Screen and Sub Sweep and eliminate Aircraft Inolvement altogether (ie. Def and Att of 0)
      -Super Sub Tech would not give any benefit to SUBs in regular combat, as they would then become overpowered militarily if built en masse (we are trying to keep SUBs economic units, rather than military units)
      Sonar Tech (new) would increase Destroyer Def and Att to 3 on both Sub Screen and Sub Sweep
      -it would also allow Cruisers to be involved, with Def and Att of 3 on both Sub Screen and Sub Sweep
      LRA Tech would increase Aircraft Def and Att to 2 on both Sub Screen and Sub Sweep
      -obviously if countering Techs were in play, they would cancel each other out

      Thoughts?

      posted in House Rules
      cousin_joeC
      cousin_joe
    • RE: A&ARe (Enhanced) tech rules in AA50

      Hi Emperor,

      I agree, this is a whole new game and we can’t simply port over everything from AARe to AA50e

      When we created Enhanced for Revised, there were 3 primary objectives (each with several sub-objectives)

      1. Increase Historical Accuracy
      -recreate Battle of Atlantic
      -keep US/UK in WEur rather than Kar
      -keep Japan in Asia/Pacific rather than driving to Russia
      -keep US/UK in Asia/Pacific rather than full KGF

      2. Increase Strategic Gameplay
      -making all units viable
      -making Tech directed, balanced, and more strategic
      -increase player decisions (through the use of NAs)
      -increase number of fronts, and difficult decisions for resource distribution among those fronts

      3. Increase Variation in Playout
      -give multiple ways to win rather than just Moscow capture (adjusted VCs)
      -multiple NA decisions resulted in very different games every time

      Based on these goals, this is how I see things playing out…

      1. I truly believe Ottawa VC has to move to Cairo.  Right now Hawaii is nearly impossible to take and hold for a 13VC win without Moscow.  Therefore, Japan is forced to go after Russia at some point.  To counter the easier Cairo VC take for Axis, India must be able to sustain an IC.  This can be done with the special rule I mentioned in another thread (UK1 IC can produce units immediately)

      2. Improved Sub Rules so Battle of Atlantic is possible for Germany to slow down the UK.  This would include Convoy Raids.  Also, SUBs need to be much less vulnerable to attack.  We also need a way for Germany to get at UK TRNs without having to fight against fleets.

      3. The nonagression treaty can be restored with a simple NO.  -5IPC for Japan if they control or occupy any original Russian territory and Vice versa.  I think this is a very clean way to do it, and should be a good disincentive for either side.

      4. The Tech system will need to be repaired to make it more strategic.  I would suggest something as close to AA50 OOTB rules as possible, but would allow for Directed Tech, not this random garbage which has no business being in a strategy game.  :roll:

      5. NAs are the last issue and I do think we will need to introduce these.  They increase strategic gameplay and variation in playout significantly.  For AA50 though, I would look at a very simple, streamlined version of NAs.  Right now, I have it down to only 3 NA options per nation, with the idea of only 1NA selection/nation in the game (ie. 3 total for Axis, 3 total for Allies).  The NAs themselves are very basic, yet strategically diverse.  They should fit in very nicely with AA50’s style of play.

      posted in House Rules
      cousin_joeC
      cousin_joe
    • RE: Victory Cities - Same Old Japan Race to Moscow… but wait...

      @mpc220:

      cousin_joe, you have read my freaking mind about this topic.  I’ve only played the 1942 scenario, but as I’ve played more and more I’ve come to realize that if the US goes full out against Japan, it’s practically impossible for the Axis to win.  Even if Japan makes 50+ IPCs per turn, it cannot simultaneously conquer China and India and also maintain parity with the US.  At least not until turn 5 or so, by which point the American fleet should be almost insurmountably large.

      Hawaii is the lynchpin, and since the US has its turn before victory conditions are checked there is very little chance Japan will hold it at that time.

      Yes, exactly mpc
      And that’s why I believe the existing victory conditions are flawed

      Japan will at some point realize the US cannot be beat, Haw as a VC is a lost cause, and they will have to start moving towards Moscow

      The current Victory Conditions basically end up necessitating the capture of Moscow
      We all know that Moscow was not a target of Japan in WWII, they had a Non-agression pact for goodness sake!  :roll:
      Really, what the Victory Conditions should do, is allow an Axis win without forcing Japan to go after Moscow

      Here’s how I see it with Cairo replacing Egypt as a VC…

      **If Germany gets 2 out of 3 of Kar, Cau and Mos
      and Italy gets 1 out of 1 of Egy
      and Japan gets 2 out of 3 of Ind, Aus and Haw…

      Then Axis succeeds in all 3 theaters and that should be an Axis Victory**

      Most important of all though, Japan stays focused on Asia/Pacific and not on Moscow

      posted in House Rules
      cousin_joeC
      cousin_joe
    • RE: Victory Cities - Same Old Japan Race to Moscow… but wait...

      Why can’t Japan go after the US?

      I’ve only played a few games, but why can’t Japan go after the US.  They out earn them and have naval superiority.  They Don’t need much to conquer China (which is reduced to 1-2 ter by J2) and Aus can fall on J2.  Why can’t you make HI, ALA, and WUS a priority?
      Afterall it is quicker than the 6-7 turns to Mos.  An IC on Man can essentally let you shuck 10-11 units to ALA per turn.  A 2nd IC can be used to hold the lines in Asia.  Or 2 mainland ICs for Asia, 8 Japan units for Pac.

      Has anyone really tried to go after the US?

      I used to think like you do, that Japan has a lot of stuff, and could just bully the US
      There’s several problems though

      -Japan only gets 17IPC J1
      -Japan’s Navy gets spread out J1 to get the territories and the NOs
      -Japan must spend part of their income in SE Asia, so even though they may outproduce the US, they can’t spend it all on Navy like the US can
      -The extra SZ(new) btw Japan and Hawaii really kills your supply line
      -SUBS and AIR are a dirt cheap way for US to deter Japanese agression.  In Anniversary, Air outperforms Surface Navy by leaps and bounds

      Taking WUS with Japan will not work against any decent player

      posted in House Rules
      cousin_joeC
      cousin_joe
    • RE: Victory Cities - Same Old Japan Race to Moscow… but wait...

      @Craig:

      My groups pushed for Cairo during the early playtesting.

      Also, the Romania-Bulgaria territory would have been a nice place for an IC, if it had been bumped up to 3 IPCs.

      Craig

      Seems sensible to me
      I have no idea why they would choose Ottawa
      Germany has little chance of getting there
      I suppose if UK is sleeping, maybe Italy can sneak in there, but that’s pretty remote
      As I said above though, Ottawa as the VC basically makes Moscow a necessary VC for the Axis

      posted in House Rules
      cousin_joeC
      cousin_joe
    • RE: AA50 Enhanced: Sub Rules

      The more I think of it, the more I like the 1:1
      The only problem I can think of is in the Pacific, say if US decides to just buy masses of SUBs with the main intent to use them as fodder for their Air Force attacks
      US can have a fleet of 6SUBs, and if Japan has only 1-2 DDs, then Japan can at most kill only 1-2 of these SUBs

      the problem with SUBs is at 6IPCs, they can be abused
      US often cashes around 50IPC, which would mean 8SUBs/TURN
      Japan would never be able to produce that many DDs to fight them off

      This is the crux of the problem
      We need SUBs that are strong in the Atlantic for economic attacks while at the same time, keeping them relatively weaker in the Pacific so they can’t be abused en masse for military attacks.

      posted in House Rules
      cousin_joeC
      cousin_joe
    • AA50 Enhanced: Sub Rules

      Hey guys,

      We all know the AA50 OOTB version is severely missing a Battle of the Atlantic
      We’re looking for some suggestions on rules to makes SUBs more viable, especially for Germany
      These should be very small and simple rules tweaks which don’t involve introduction of any new units or setup changes
      Generally these rules should involve the following

      Subs should be more viable purchases, especially for Germany
      Subs should have capabilities for economic attacks
      Subs should have capabilities to harass transports
      Subs should have increased survivability on defense
      Subs should not be overly strong as warships

      With that said, I do have some initial thoughts…

      1. I think we have to reinstitute Convoy Raid damage like we had in AARe
      -This can be done as an NO, I would include it for US,UK,Japan, and Italy
      -Keep all enemy SUBs away from your shipping lanes
      -Lose 2IPC for every enemy sub within 1 SZ (ie. adjacent)
      -Lose 1IPC for every enemy sub within 2 SZ

      For AA50, I would just include the areas around the capital ICs, not every IC.  For US, it would be bothe EUS and WUS.  Subs that became submerged would count for AA50.

      2. I think SUBs should be allowed a Special Attack(needs a name) against enemy transports
      -Any attacking force consisting only of SUBs, attacking any enemy fleet with at least 1 transport, has the option to avoid Regular Combat, and instead launch a Special Attack against the trasnport(s).
      -For each DD in the defending force, roll a die.  This is considered a Sub Screen, and actually takes place before the attacking subs roll
      -Any roll of 2 or less is considered a hit and results in an attacking SUB being removed immediately
      -Any surviving SUB is considered undetected, and is allowed to ignore all other defending units and specifically attack a transport. 
      -Any roll of 3 or less is considered a hit and results in a defending TRN being removed immediately
      -Surviving SUBs can now submerge

      What this does is give Germany some chance of slowing the UK(or US) in the Atlantic.  SUBs become a nusiance for the Allies.  they will have to invest some resources to either kill SUBs or better defend their fleets (more DDs, replacement TRNs).  US and Japan can harass each other in the Pacific as well.  For the Super Subs Tech, I would say the Sub Screen drops to 1 or less, and TRNs are sunk at 4 or less.  I would not have Super Subs give any benefit to the regular attack.  Subs stay specialized for their economic role and don’t become a cheap warship.

      3. The last component of SUB rules for AA50 Enhanced would be giving them some increased survival.  As to how, I’m not quite decided yet
      -there have been some ideas thrown around though…

      A. SUBs are detected on a 1:1 basis.  1 DD detects 1 SUB.  If attacked, any undetected SUB may submerge prior to the battle.
      -this is not bad, though it doesn’t give much protection for lone SUBs.  I would add a rule that ANY SUB, can submerge after 1 Round of Combat, regardless of whether or not an opposing DD is present.

      B. Using Detection Rolls as in AARe.    To me, this just doesn’t feel right for AA50.  DDs and SUBs are cheaper.  It seems a bit more complex than it needs to be.  I suppose it works, but I’m hoping there are simpler ways.

      C. SUBs can only be attacked and killed by DDs.  The idea here is that if SUBs are attacked, only the opposing DDs get to roll against them.  I would say at a roll of 2 or less, 3 or less if a FTR or BMBR is present (could even do this on a one-to-one ratio).  The idea here is that SUBs must be hunted down by DDs.  I worry though, that this makes SUBs too powerful, especially in the Pacific where SUBs may outnumber DDs by a significant amount.

      Anyways, this last aspect is important for SUB viability.  There’s no use producing SUBs if they can be killed so easily.  You don’t want to overdo it though by making them too hard to kill either.  I’d like to see what other suggestions are out there, or how we can modify one of these existing options to make it suitable for use.

      posted in House Rules
      cousin_joeC
      cousin_joe
    • RE: A&ARe (Enhanced) tech rules in AA50

      @axis_roll:

      Enhanced  (AARe) utilized a 4:2 system of tech in Revised:
      4 dice were the minimum number of tech dice you could buy. 
      You then rolled to see if you achieved the targetted tech.

      If you failed, you had to invest in only 2 more dice the next turn and
      you would be guarenteed of having the targetted tech.

      This maintained an element of luck as well as strategy
      as you could buy 6 dice and guarentee the tech on one turn if you wanted.
      How to incorporate in AA50 both the element of luck and the ‘strategy’ of tech that was achieved in AARe?

      Two modifications to the AA50 tech system:

      Keeping with the “6 dice give you a tech” concept:

      Whenever you have achieved at least 6 researcher rolls (cumulatively), you get a tech.

      This could be over 6 rounds if you only invested in 1 researcher.
      or could be as short as one round if you purchase 6 researchers in one round.

      Another example is to spend $10 on two researchers.  Roll the dice. 
      If you fail to get a 6, wait until the next round and roll 2 more dice.
      If you again fail, the next round, you will have accumulated 6 researcher rolls,
      thus guarenteeing a tech development.

      Keeping with the “‘directed’ aspect”, thereby allowing more strategy in tech
      other than a one in six chance (random)

      A player can buy off up to two tech outcomes if they so desire.  Eliminating an unwanted tech costs
      $3 for each one (up to $6).  You must allocate these dollars as part of your tech development costs,
      but if you fail to achieve a tech, you do not forfeit this money: these dollars that were to buy off
      a tech outcome is then saved until next turn.

      You do pay a penalty for ‘directed’ tech. 
      The tech you end up achieving is not affective until the end of your turn.

      You may still opt to not buy off any sides, (risk the super subs) and get an instantaneous tech.


      Please feel free to comment offering any solutions or suggestions.

      Enhanced was built with an ‘open source’ concept where a group built a great rules set.  We can begin that same level of greatness with a AA50e rules set.

      I think Tech is the first thing to fix.  Other things will be added over time.

      thanks!

      and Good Gaming!
      axis_roll

      Hey axis_roll,

      Definitely agree with your line of thinking here
      Any adjustments for AA50 Enhanced should be very small
      Basically just little tweaks, that increase the overall strategic aspect of the game

      With that said, I definitely think Random Techs has got to go
      They have no place at all in a game of strategy
      I would also suggest Tech doesn’t come into play until the end of your turn
      This pretty much goes hand-in-hand with Directed Techs

      I’ve given this some thought and should have some ideas shortly…

      posted in House Rules
      cousin_joeC
      cousin_joe
    • RE: Victory Cities - Same Old Japan Race to Moscow… but wait...

      I’m gonna get this in because I’m sure someone’s going to say this suggestion makes victory a lot easier for the axis…

      To that, I would say that even though the Egypt VC is much easier for the Axis to take, The sustainable India VC is much more difficult.  UK basically gets to produce 3units/TURN here for Japan to deal with.  Japan has a harder time getting their 5IPC NO bonus for one of Ind/Aus/Haw.

      I would probably modify the special rule just a little more as well…

      On UK1, if UK builds an IC in either Egypt, India or Australia, they may place purchased units there this turn (Ground Units Only - INF,ARM or RTL).  If UK builds more than 1 IC in these territories on UK1, only one IC can be chosen to place the units this turn.

      I suspect India would still be the likely placement, but if Japan shows a hard push to India, UK has the option of fortifying Australia or Egypt (if not hit G1) to deny the Axis that last VC

      posted in House Rules
      cousin_joeC
      cousin_joe
    • Victory Cities - Same Old Japan Race to Moscow… but wait...

      Sad to say, but due to unit and Victory City setup, we are left with that old, tired playout of Godzilla Japan being forced to get into Moscow before the Allies get to Berlin… Assuming a 13VC 1941 game with NOs, here’s what happens…

      Germany can’t build fleet or subs, therefore, they push to Moscow
      Russia as always defends
      UK cannot sustain an India IC, therefore focuses on Germany
      Now here is the key… Japan and USA

      In theory, Axis can secure a win by holding their own VCs, and having Japan take Ind, Aus, Haw, Kwa, Phi, while Germany takes Kar and Cau
      However, if the Allies can secure just ONE of these, then the Axis MUST take Moscow

      For Japan, Kwa and Phi are no problem… with the right moves, Aus and Ind can be taken as well
      The problem is Hawaii…

      Because of that extra SZ around Iwo Jima, and a good-sized US income, Hawaii becomes EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to take and secure…
      Since Haw cannot be taken, Japan has no choice but to put pressure on Russia - whether it be through China, Siberia or Persia
      Once Japan reshifts their focus to Moscow, USA follows suit and shifts their focus to Berlin

      **End Result: The game once again comes down to whether Japan gets to Moscow before the Allies get to Berlin. **

      I’m definitely reading on the boards, that there are a lot of people that are sick of this playout.  Why should the outcome of a game based on World War II, come down to how Japan does against Russia?!?!?  Japan shouldn’t even be in Russia!!!

      Now what I’m gonna say next is probably gonna get this thread booted over to house rules, but consider this…

      You know that useless VC in Ottawa?  Yeah, the one that when everyone heard of they said, “why the heck over there?!?”  Well, I think 2 little rule changes can seriously help this game…

      1. The Ottawa VC is moved to Egypt instead
      2. Special Rule - On UK1, if UK builds an IC in India, they may place purchased units there this turn

      With just these 2 little minor rule changes, this would be the effect…

      Germany gets a little bit stronger because of less UK pressure (better chance of getting Cau VC without Japan help)
      Russia gets a little bit stronger because of less Japan pressure (these 2 roughly balance out)
      UK gets a sustainable India IC
      Japan is not as much of a Godzilla anymore as India slows them down (balanced by Germany getting stronger)

      Now, if US is defending Haw as they should, and Axis does OK securing the Egypt VC, then the game hinges on Japan’s ability to take India which is far more palatable than Japan trying to take Moscow.

      Thoughts?

      posted in House Rules
      cousin_joeC
      cousin_joe
    • RE: It arrived!

      @Black_Elk:

      Well, I still have high hopes for the game, but I can’t help but be disappointed with this news. I don’t see the benefit of including China in the set up, when all these China-specific rules introduce so much unnecessary complexity into the game. I hate to make suggestions for next time, because I have a feeling its going to be a while, but in the future I really hope the designers take into consideration whether new rules/features are going to be worth the effort, before including them.

      So far I can count about 5 or 6 new rules that only pertain to China, and way the Chinese interact with the rest of the “Normal” players. But when you compare that with what we actually get out of China in terms of gameplay, its hard for me to see where the big pay off is coming from. Unlike the National Advantages in Revised or Tech, the China rules are not optional, but built into the framework of the game.

      My request for future development would be to PLEASE stop incorporating new rules into the game, and stop looking to new “House Rules” as a solution to fix underlying game balance problems. Instead, focus on fine tunning the core gameplay mechanics that already exist (i.e. the stuff that is the same for everyone, throughout the duration of the game.) Consistency, simplicity, and ease of use, should always trump the other considerations, and only give way when an idea seems really innovative and promises to open up new and interesting dimensions to the gameplay.

      That’s all I wanted to say. Other than all these nation specific rules, I’m happy with AA50, and look forward to playing when my copy arrives. :)

      Wow, gotta agree completely here with Black_Elk
      Looks like a lot of new and out-of-place rules basically just to create a speed bump
      I think the “China rules” could have been done much cleaner without as many exceptions to the “Regular rules”
      Anyways, we can see how it plays out, but I thnk China is just gonna get ran over  :-)

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      cousin_joeC
      cousin_joe
    • RE: Some set ups availible for AA50

      @Subotai:

      It’s been a while since I discussed bids, how high and what kind. I’m playing in the TripleA lobby, and there almost all players use preplace bids, that means all units are preplaced, not 50/50. When you are playing via forum, you use half cash - half amount in units? I thought you also used 100% preplace bid, and only 1 unit pr TT.
      That rule if bid placement can be grouped is a minor one. I know good players have lost even if they placed 3 inf in Ukr….  :roll:

      I almost forgot this is the AA50 thread, not AAR  :lol:

      Wonder if ppl still will use all bids to Germany - Africa, and if the bids will difference from with or w/o NOs.
      I can’t imagine bids for allies, but I’m not 100% sure yet. The biggest question is if AA50 bids will be higher than AAR.

      I hope if they do get some tournament rules for AA50 (eg. LHTR), that they get rid of the 50/50 thing.  It makes it a lot more confusing than it needs to be.

      So far what I’m hearing and seeing is that Axis has the edge in a game with NOs.  That would make bidding very awkward.  Generally, most players prefer to play Axis, and are willing to lower their bid quite far to get them.

      I’m trying to imagine 2 players bidding to play Allies, but trying to keep their bids as high as possible so that their opponent gets ‘stuck’ with them instead…

      Player A and Player B submit secret bids to play the Allies…
      Player A: “Well buddy, I bid 50IPC to be the Allies, so it looks like you’re going to ‘win’ the bid”
      Player B: “Sorry pal, I bid a 100IPC.  Looks like you’re stuck with them”
      Player A: “Damn.  I wanted Axis!”

      WEIRD!

      posted in Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
      cousin_joeC
      cousin_joe
    • RE: Economic warfare expansion to AA50

      Hi Lynxes,

      re: SBR
      -in principle, I agree that interceptors and escorts should be in the game
      -personally, I would probably look at simplifying your method for doing this, particularly air combat

      re: Convoy interdiction
      -personally, I would suggest simplifying this as well (I’d probably remove the blocking of unit production and stick with the convoy damage)
      -I see that you have gone with a different approach here, focusing the attacks on the actual transports rather than the ICs.  I do like the idea that this is considered a special attack (and thus separated from regular combat)

      posted in House Rules
      cousin_joeC
      cousin_joe
    • 1 / 1