poke through the games from the last 2 vs 2 tournament. That is where switch got all riled up at.
More activity in pacific?
-
Has anyone come up with any good house rules for getting American and Japan to fight each other more? I suppose you could simply declare that Japan and Russia are not allowed to engage each other…but that would effectively split the game into two separate halves. I’m just tired of the very un-historical way that over 90% of games play out. Zero-IPC islands are always ignored, and half of Asia turns yellow before there is any chance of an Axis victory. Creating a magical wall between Japan and Russia would, IMO, give the allies an advantage in Europe. Maybe that could be balanced by lowering Russia’s power somehow? Just thinking out loud here. I know there is the non-aggression treaty NA, but I’ve found that it just slows the inevitable outcome of Japan stacking up outside of Moscow. Any thoughts?
-
Best house rules for more Japan on America warfare is to implement the National Advantages (especially the LHTR ones.) They are almost designed to make an attack on Japan more enjoyable.
-
Use NA, from LHTR. Each side receive 4 NAs, selecting them in the following way. First round each power select an NA to use at the start of his turn. In the second round each axis power receive another NA. Allied select the power which receive their fourth NA.
- Maybe Non Agression Treaty may be used as a rule of the game instead of being an NA for Russia.
Another altetrnative is to use A&A Enhanced rules, that are aimed to allow battles on all the boardmap.
-
Use NA, from LHTR. Each side receive 4 NAs, selecting them in the following way. First round each power select an NA to use at the start of his turn. In the second round each axis power receive another NA. Allied select the power which receive their fourth NA.
- Maybe Non Agression Treaty may be used as a rule of the game instead of being an NA for Russia.
Another altetrnative is to use A&A Enhanced rules, that are aimed to allow battles on all the boardmap.
Or as a subset of Enhanced (or other ‘house rules’,
You can add A VC or two to the pacific like Hawaii and/or Australia.
Don’t forget you’d need to increase the victory city count accordingly too.
-
That’s my pet peive with AARe. I don’t like ONLY the Allies having extra VCs. It’s too hard to lock down a victory.
If you add VCs to Hawaii and Australia and Caucasus then I think you need to add a VC to Norway and Wake Island. (Mainly because the story of wake is so romantic. 7 US Marines holding the entire Japanese invasion force off….<drool> Screw Iwo Jima! Wake is where it’s at!)</drool>
-
@Cmdr:
That’s my pet peive with AARe. I don’t like ONLY the Allies having extra VCs. It’s too hard to lock down a victory.
for which side? Please elaborate
-
Simply play more KJF or use a balanced strategy … or play Guadalcanal :lol:
-
Best war in the pacific is a silent one. :P
One of those countries navy will be killed soon enough, or the US will retreat, or be destroyed, Japanese will get away but stay close, cos Japan needs its navy badly.
So I would rather have no war there.
-
@Cmdr:
That’s my pet peive with AARe. I don’t like ONLY the Allies having extra VCs. It’s too hard to lock down a victory.
for which side? Please elaborate
It’s too hard for the Allies. They have to protect too many places, the Axis can protect as in a normal game resulting in a much easier win.
Also, Kill England First becomes very viable for Germany because of Afrika Corps + Wolf Packs + Japan moving on Hawaii and India. England cannot earn any money. 4 Submarines off England + no Middle East + No Islands in the Pacific + No Africa = 4 IPC income per round, IF Germany doesn’t SBR it. Too fracking powerful.
AARe needs to EITHER have the submarine detection rules OR the CR rules. Not both. At least give the allies a chance to win a game! Hell, I play AARe and bid 12 IPC to be the ALLIES and the Axis still have an easy walk to victory because it’s skewed very heavily towards an easy Axis victory. Allies have to be VERY lucky with the dice in Rounds 1-7 to even have a chance, and even then, the Axis can easily pop back into existence as a MAJOR threat to the Allies of their choice (yes, PLURAL, Japan threatens one, Germany the other.)
-
@Cmdr:
@Cmdr:
That’s my pet peive with AARe. I don’t like ONLY the Allies having extra VCs. It’s too hard to lock down a victory.
for which side? Please elaborate
It’s too hard for the Allies. They have to protect too many places, the Axis can protect as in a normal game resulting in a much easier win.
Also, Kill England First becomes very viable for Germany because of Afrika Corps + Wolf Packs + Japan moving on Hawaii and India. England cannot earn any money. 4 Submarines off England + no Middle East + No Islands in the Pacific + No Africa = 4 IPC income per round, IF Germany doesn’t SBR it. Too fracking powerful.
AARe needs to EITHER have the submarine detection rules OR the CR rules. Not both. At least give the allies a chance to win a game! Hell, I play AARe and bid 12 IPC to be the ALLIES and the Axis still have an easy walk to victory because it’s skewed very heavily towards an easy Axis victory. Allies have to be VERY lucky with the dice in Rounds 1-7 to even have a chance, and even then, the Axis can easily pop back into existence as a MAJOR threat to the Allies of their choice (yes, PLURAL, Japan threatens one, Germany the other.)
Well I disagree with your assessment of the game balance in Enhanced. I have about 50+ Enhanced games under my belt. Your view is based on how many Enhanced games? Not trying to be a smart a$$, just trying to see your level of Enhanced experience.
Give me the allies straight up and I’ll show you how to win with them in Enhanced.
-
7 Enhanced Games.
I’ve seen some REALLY bad players win in Enhanced because they lucked out and got the axis.
I’ve seen some REALLY good players get creamed in Enhanced because they got unlucky and were assigned the allies against their will.The only game I won with the allies was because I bid 15 IPC to Russia for 5 Infantry in Caucasus.
-
@Cmdr:
7 Enhanced Games.
I’ve seen some REALLY bad players win in Enhanced because they lucked out and got the axis.
I’ve seen some REALLY good players get creamed in Enhanced because they got unlucky and were assigned the allies against their will.The only game I won with the allies was because I bid 15 IPC to Russia for 5 Infantry in Caucasus.
My face-to-face playing group typically bids $4 to the Axis in our Enhanced games. I would say we’re very advanced Enhanced players.
We’ve NEVER given a bid to the Allies.
The game is more balanced, the Axis have a realistic chance to win. The allies have to build up a bid more slowly and concentrate on winning certain theatres one at a time (per ally). They can’t just buy all kind of units haphazardly and throw them at one of the axis partners. US can not ignore the Pacific. They also need to help in the atlantic too.
In LHTR Revised, IMHO, the Axis with a bid of < 8 have 40% chance of winning.
Almost need the 8+ bid to make it close to even. Even then, poor Axis round 1 dice can not be over come. In Enhanced, I’ve come back and won with bad dice round 1 (for BOTH sides).The Key is to utilize your NAs properly.
-
my version of enhanced that little white book with the soldier on it.
i’ve played about 25 of those games, but the rules are quite different than your version of enhanced i think.
i really like the building limits, and we always have HUGE battles b/w heavy units. that and russia becomes a chess player trying to make sure germany cant force peace on them unless the game is over.
-
Try a “Sane Hitler” National Advantage…
Germany does NOT declare war on the US after Pearl.
Treat as “Non-Aggression” but with USA paying the penalty if they attack Germany…
-
What is unhistorical is china being only 2 pieces and Hawaii set up. Also create a terrtory called burma.
America should start off with both fighters on the carrier. also china needs to be vertically divided in half. Midway island is right next to Hawaii and they should be one territory. then pearl II makes sense as the battle of Midway. Then it makes more sense for america to enter the war against Japan. -
In fact, China has 4 territories: Sinkiang, China, Kwantung and Manchuria. I don’t like China in A&A. Should be another power, have more territories or a starting IC. It is a shame that in many games China is easily conquered by Japan, when in real life they resisted Japan for 8 years, the first 4 by alone and even when they were divided in Kuomingtan and Communists! A very good reason for doing KJF is saving the chineses and retake their home territories from japanese invaders :-D
-
@Craig:
@Cmdr:
That’s my pet peive with AARe. I don’t like ONLY the Allies having extra VCs. It’s too hard to lock down a victory.
If you add VCs to Hawaii and Australia and Caucasus then I think you need to add a VC to Norway and Wake Island. (Mainly because the story of wake is so romantic. 7 US Marines holding the entire Japanese invasion force off….<drool>Screw Iwo Jima! Wake is where it’s at!)</drool>
That is where my VT system is a viable alternative. There are more VTs in the Pacific making for more action there.
Craig
Yep, as I said there’s many ‘house rules’ that add more value to the pacific, making it a <more>active theatre of war. Adding victory conditions in the Pacific is one way. Another way I’ve seen is to alter the value of the Pacific territories. A second edition rules set from Gamers Paradise made all islands worth $2 (including Philipines) and added $2 to Alaska, mexico and panama. The base income for Japan and America however did not change. This had the affect of really hurting if you lost (and didn’t take back) such territories. The also made the US have to fight in the Pacific or they could lose some major cash as well.</more>
-
we play china as its own entity, its in enhanced. the american units stay there and you use american pieces, but china goes after america. you roll a die and if its a 2, 3, 4, you put that many inf down on a spot. they defend on two’s, put you need 5 inf stacked to make 1 die roll on attack. that way they really cant attack out, but its very hard to take over the chinks. but in enhanced japan gets to use heavy inf on bonzaii attacks.
-
@Craig:
@Craig:
@Cmdr:
That’s my pet peive with AARe. I don’t like ONLY the Allies having extra VCs. It’s too hard to lock down a victory.
If you add VCs to Hawaii and Australia and Caucasus then I think you need to add a VC to Norway and Wake Island. (Mainly because the story of wake is so romantic. 7 US Marines holding the entire Japanese invasion force off….<drool>Screw Iwo Jima! Wake is where it’s at!)</drool>
That is where my VT system is a viable alternative. There are more VTs in the Pacific making for more action there.
Craig
Yep, as I said there’s many ‘house rules’ that add more value to the pacific, making it a <more>active theatre of war. Adding victory conditions in the Pacific is one way. Another way I’ve seen is to alter the value of the Pacific territories. A second edition rules set from Gamers Paradise made all islands worth $2 (including Philipines) and added $2 to Alaska, mexico and panama. The base income for Japan and America however did not change. This had the affect of really hurting if you lost (and didn’t take back) such territories. The also made the US have to fight in the Pacific or they could lose some major cash as well.</more>
The difference between my VT system and the Enhanced is that I address Jen’s concern of an equal amount of VCs/VTs for both sides.
axis_roll- Did you ever hang out with the Gamers Paradise guy(s)? They are from the Chicagoland area.
Craig
I have meet the creator/owner of the Gamers Paradise chain (Phil), but he wouldn’t play us…
We’ve won (my partner and I) two Gamers Paradise Expansion tourneys. One was held at a Gen Con in Milwaukee. 1993? I think…
-
:-o
I’m guessing, but all this effort required in the Pacific theatre should cause games to go into the 20 + rounds before a victory can be secured. Who has played these house rules and can either confirm or deny my suspicions?
:roll:
Suggested Topics
