A&ARe (Enhanced) tech rules in AA50

[Jennifer]

But you do agree that the NAs are currently in the AARe rule set, so I’m not really “adding” them I’m just adapting what’s already there to work inside the AA50 rules.

And the new pieces (for people who don’t want to read ALL of that, those are Heavy Cruisers which are just 1 hit battleships and Escort Carriers which are basically half Aircraft Carriers) really are not that extensive, they make play a bit more exciting since now you can break your fleet up a bit.

The idea behind those two pieces are to end the cat and mouse of naval warfare.  usually you have two big fleets and a transport or two and they’re advancing and retreating and eventually one side accidentally gets in range of the other and there’s a battle.

With the other two units, it could well be one major fleet and two minor fleets and the minor fleets get into it and can actually turn the tide of battle.

(Hey, who knows, a destroyer, escort carrier, fighter and transport can take out islands, that means the enemy might attack with four or five fighters and a bomber or two and you never know, the defender could win that!)

[Imperious Leader]

Though this unit has not seen a lot of action. (We toyed with removing the BB in SZ 53 (Pearl) and replacing it with 2 of these and then getting rid of the transport/destroyer in SZ 56 altogether to reblance it.)

I really like the first part of that. The old US BB in Hawaii should actually be 2 BC, because these are old BB’s

The Japanese may also replace a BB with BC, but add a CA in 42

UK should get one BC with the BB and Germany should get a BC in Baltic

[Jennifer]

I think those would be achievable.

I also think in 1942 the American Bomber should be replaced with an American Fighter in England.  Just a personal feeling on that.

As for the BC finding a lot of action, I think it’s because getting a cruiser is just more efficient, same with the destroyer.  (Especially since you need to kill those frazzin submarines and the only things that can are destroyers now that submarines cannot target each other.)

[Imperious Leader]

The first American bombing raid over Germany was not until jan 43… I think UK should have just one US infantry unit ( 82 airborne) for 42.

I think US has too many bombers in 42, one extra fighter perhaps best.

[Jennifer]

It was my understanding that England had something similar to China, a volunteer American Fighter unit.  That’s the only reason I mentioned that change.

From a game play standpoint, the Fighter would do well for defending England from Sea Lion (which I believe was why it was there to begin with) while also not giving America 3 frazzin bombers at the start of the game to use for mayhem and utter destruction which I think could, in the right hands, be unfairly over powering.

Just a thought on the matter.

[Imperious Leader]

well American pilots did serve in the RAF, but this was limited. No American planes in UK. The first US force to land officially was 82nd airborne in 1942.

They have a movie called Yank in the RAF. Its not bad.

I would just add a fighter and remove a bomber in 42. Id put fighter with the carrier

[cousin_joe]

@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…

[jsp4563]

To be honest, i’m not comfortable with all these proposed changes.  I would consider an enhanced version that included NA’s, CRD, D-day, and Russo-Jap non-aggression. For me all these new units is a non-starter.  I’m undecided on directed Tech, I kind of like the hiring scientists and rolling for the tech.

Bottom line, we haven’t played enough OOB games to really know what the ramifications will be.  These rules introduce far too many variables.

[Jennifer]

So far we have 3 stated problems:

1)  Two people complain about the new units. (Remember, Destroyers were new once too.  So are Cruisers.  So I don’t know what the real problem is other than resistance to change.)

Solution:  Optional Advance Rule.  (I’m sure these will become default playing pieces on the game once people realize how good at least the Escort Carrier is and how nice the half Battleship is as an escort unit.)

a)  Problem here is we are buffing the utter crap out of submarines making them unrealistically powerful under the rules of AA50.  But without the new units, there’s no real balance.  I can see games of 50 submarines on either side and no surface ships again because why bother?

b)  If we at least include the rule that submarines cannot attack other submarines, life gets better.

c)  If we allow for cheap carriers and battleships (1 hit) then life at least starts to balance out.  Sure, your submarines can go sink an ac/bb/dd/trn but now you are not destroying 2 rounds worth of income!  Now you are only taking out 1 round of income, give or take.

2)  One person is complaining about National Advantages (funny thing is he is claiming I invented it and am making radical changes by adding it in.)

a)  I did not invent it.  It was already there.
b)  All I did was remove those NAs that overlapped technologies and make adjustments
c)  We still need a list for Italy and replace the ones lost from Germany so they have a full list now.

Solution:  These can also be made optional advance rules. (Like Magic 84 was an optional rule in Classic that is now standard.)

3)  Technology, this is not a “problem” per se, it’s a matter of trying to make the 4:2 system from AARe work in AA50e.  My solution was to leave the rule alone and just change the AA50 rules for technology to work like AAR rules for technology.  I think that’s the best solution.  Since no one else has proffered a solution (leaving it as it is in AA50 is not a solution, it’s ignoring the problem) I don’t know what else we can do.

Solution 1: Leave it as written in the AA50e manual. (Jennifer’s Solution - the standard 4:2 rule)
Solution 2: Once you achieve 6 dice, over as many rounds as you want, you can roll for a random technology on the chart you want. (Axis_Roll’s solution.)

a) What I like about solution 2 is that you can get the technology with 6 dice. 
b) What I don’t like is that it removes all strategy from the technology.  In enhanced (revised) it is currently a strategy, you get the technology you want to get for your grand scheme.
c) What I don’t like is that it is now impossible to use the Shared Technology rules.

AFAICT (As Far As I Can Tell) Axis Roll’s solution makes for huge, unwarranted, and unneeded changes to a system that was functioning just fine.  His solution completely kills an entire aspect of the rules (shared technologies) and removes them as a strategic solution.  (The latter is not as bad, since AA50 already did that, but the former is a HUGE fundamental shift!)

---

---

Not trying to be a pain, but honestly, I need specific feedback to perceived problems.  Telling me “I don’t like all the changes” does not tell me anything other than you did not read what I posted (since if you had, you would notice there are not all that many changes.)

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

So far we have 3 stated problems:

1)  Two people complain about the new units. (Remember, Destroyers were new once too.  So are Cruisers.  So I don’t know what the real problem is other than resistance to change.)

Solution:  Optional Advance Rule.  (I’m sure these will become default playing pieces on the game once people realize how good at least the Escort Carrier is and how nice the half Battleship is as an escort unit.)

a)  Problem here is we are buffing the utter crap out of submarines making them unrealistically powerful under the rules of AA50.  But without the new units, there’s no real balance.  I can see games of 50 submarines on either side and no surface ships again because why bother?

b)  If we at least include the rule that submarines cannot attack other submarines, life gets better.

c)  If we allow for cheap carriers and battleships (1 hit) then life at least starts to balance out.  Sure, your submarines can go sink an ac/bb/dd/trn but now you are not destroying 2 rounds worth of income!  Now you are only taking out 1 round of income, give or take.

You’re making GRAND changes to the rules.  We want changes to be as minimal as possible.
New pieces?  you say they’re needed… I think you need to back off your rule changes that make them so necessary.  You created a problem with a rule, so your solution is another rule (piece)?

Where do you stop?

@Cmdr:

3)  Technology, this is not a “problem” per se, it’s a matter of trying to make the 4:2 system from AARe work in AA50e.  My solution was to leave the rule alone and just change the AA50 rules for technology to work like AAR rules for technology.  I think that’s the best solution.  Since no one else has proffered a solution (leaving it as it is in AA50 is not a solution, it’s ignoring the problem) I don’t know what else we can do.

Solution 1: Leave it as written in the AA50e manual. (Jennifer’s Solution - the standard 4:2 rule)
Solution 2: Once you achieve 6 dice, over as many rounds as you want, you can roll for a random technology on the chart you want. (Axis_Roll’s solution.)

The reason we didn’t just jump to the AARe version of tech was to leave SOME semblance of the new tech rules (besides additional tech).

@Cmdr:

AFAICT (As Far As I Can Tell) Axis Roll’s solution makes for huge, unwarranted, and unneeded changes to a system that was functioning just fine.  His solution completely kills an entire aspect of the rules (shared technologies) and removes them as a strategic solution.  (The latter is not as bad, since AA50 already did that, but the former is a HUGE fundamental shift!)

Woah, I think your exaggerator modifier is working overtime.  Your suggestion uses NONE of the new tech development process from AA50.  You just incorporated the new techs into AARe.

If anyones changes to the AA50 tech system is Huge, that would be your proposal.
You basically are using NONE of the new system.

And a $-1 savings per roll (shared tech) is _**a huge fundamental shift?**_
Techs are more powerful since Bombers are so much cheaper.  There's no need for reduced costs in the new AA50 tech construct.

[Jennifer]

Axis:

You either have to scrap all shared tech rules or go with the AARe system for tech.  I don’t see how you can have random technologies AND shared tech.  It doesn’t pass the logic test.

And I am not making “grand” changes.  Perhaps you need to open the rules again.  It’s almost word for word with very “minor” changes.

As for the new units, if we make them optional rules, I don’t see how you have a problem anymore.  They are needed, IMHO, because they make the game more dynamic and fun for all players.  They’ve been play tested, they do fill a need and they are not over powered.  Though, none of “my” rule changes (like the 4 changes I put in) “require” them.  Technically speaking, we could get rid of Cruisers too, they are completely unneeded and hey, they’re new units too!  After all, there were no cruisers in AARe either!

Also, you will note that I did not change the price of bombers from AARe to my proposed AA50e.  So the price would be restored to 14 IPC.  Dunno if you can call that a change, YOU probably would, I would not, since I did not change it, I left it as it was. (I think this is where you find all your massive changes you accuse me of making, rules that already existed that I did not delete or alter to be like the ones in either the AAR or AA50 boxes because they were not broke, so they did not have to be fixed.)

---

To be honest, the changes are very minimalist with the minor exception of submarines which the only change I made there was that subs cannot engage subs because it’s completely unrealistic from a game play stance.  It never made sense, but with the rule that submarines cannot even defend themselves anymore (and don’t tell me at 1 is a defense ability, if I urinate on you it’s an attack at 1!) it makes even more sense to protect them from the enemy.

That and they’re cheaper than sheet now too.  With Improved Shipyards (I did not invent it, therefore you cannot blame me for making this a “change”) you can get them for the price of a tank!  So you don’t NEED to have them attacking each other.  Buy a frazzin destroyer!

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

Axis:

You either have to scrap all shared tech rules or go with the AARe system for tech.  I don’t see how you can have random technologies AND shared tech.  It doesn’t pass the logic test.

Why not?  We’ve played it out, it works.  Game play testing is the only test that should be applied.  There’s a penalty for directed tech.  There’s no penalty for the new random tech.

@Cmdr:

And I am not making “grand” changes.  Perhaps you need to open the rules again.  It’s almost word for word with very “minor” changes.

My rule book doesn’t have National Advantages
My rule book doesn’t have new units

@Cmdr:

As for the new units, if we make them optional rules, I don’t see how you have a problem anymore.  They are needed, IMHO, because they make the game more dynamic and fun for all players.

How hard was it to get people to play Enhanced after playing Revised?
Many people looked at all the new rules and due to the sheer volume, didn’t want to try them out.

You’re combining Revised and AA50 rules in conjunction with new units.

Too much.  Do you understand what minimal changes mean?

@Cmdr:

Also, you will note that I did not change the price of bombers from AARe to my proposed AA50e.  So the price would be restored to 14 IPC.

I didn’t read your post closely after I saw it was so long over 4 posts….
But yes, I agree that $14 is indeed another change.  The Base rules set is AA50 for this game.

@Cmdr:

Dunno if you can call that a change, YOU probably would, I would not, since I did not change it, I left it as it was. (I think this is where you find all your massive changes you accuse me of making, rules that already existed that I did not delete or alter to be like the ones in either the AAR or AA50 boxes because they were not broke, so they did not have to be fixed.)

This is not Revised.  This is a new game.  Did YOU read the rule book?
It doesn’t say buy revised and then buy this game because we’re going to use some of the rules from that game AND this one….

@Cmdr:

To be honest, the changes are very minimalist with the minor exception of ….

Yes, sure, all of your changes (the entire lot of them)…… are minor.

And I have a bridge to sell you too.

[jsp4563]

My thoughts are bring in the NA’s, CRD, D-Day, and Russio-Jap Non agression.  See how it goes from there.  Keeping the subs current values while giving them the CRD will give subs an actual role without making them overly powerful.

I don’t think directed tech should be added at this time.

Let’s try a few games with just these enhancements and see what it’s like.

To be honest, I’m not really sure we should even be thinking about an AA50e right now.  AA50 just came out, and really wasn’t AARe designed to add spice to a version that had been out for years?

[cousin_joe]

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.

[axis_roll]

I think these discussions are fine, but I agree with Emperor Mollari and think it still a little early yet for a full blown AA50e.

Work on tech and subs (something in the atlantic, I think the pacific is fine)

Let’s get some experience first before we try to ‘fix’ things.

[Jennifer]

The biggest problem with AA50 is that people are still trying to use submarines as combat units.

Right now, Hawaii is conquerable with Japan, I’ve done it in almost every game I’ve played.  So it’s not impossible.

I would like to see the Toronto Victory City moved to South Africa to give the Axis a better shot at getting a VC.  Egypt is too easy to take and it would shift the balance of power. (We want to avoid that, since right now the game is static, you don’t need a bid for either side.  Let’s not make changes that would necessitate a bid!)

Super Submarines is an archaic technology, why it was not destroyed before now is a mystery that will haunt us all to the day we die.  Conversion to Super Destroyers would be far more appropriate, especially if we are buffing submarines so they do CRD.  Basically, submarines are made more powerful because they can do CRD, but now Destroyers can also be made more powerful to eliminate these submarines and stop the CRD.

Also, since the battles should be between destroyers and submarines primarily, and since you even admit that you base decisions off history, it is historically and logically and from a game playablity stand point, insane to have submarines attacking other submarines.  You can’t find them, you can’t aim at them, you wouldn’t have time to hit them, they could dive out of range of your torpedoes, and as far as game play, what’s to stop America or Japan from dropping 8 submarines a round in the water to attack your CRD submarines w/o a destroyer thus eliminating the destroyer as a unit at all?

You don’t want to add new units (dunno why since they make the game more fun) and now you want to eliminate units already in the game?  If we’re doing that, let’s get rid of fighters and make bombers an attack 4 (5 with jet power) defend 2 (3 with jet power) and sell them for 12 IPC.  See, we don’t even need fighters!

argh!

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

what’s to stop America or Japan from dropping 8 submarines a round in the water to attack your CRD submarines w/o a destroyer thus eliminating the destroyer as a unit at all?

You don’t want to add new units (dunno why since they make the game more fun) and now you want to eliminate units already in the game?

I said that subs can’t sink other subs now, so that makes them even more powerful.  It takes a DD to sink subs (good change) but only 1 DD can sink an unlimited number of subs if they have enough other units also attacking.  That is bad.

How do you conjure up these thoughts/words you keep putting in other peoples mouths?
I never said to get rid of units from the game.

Your chick logic came to that conclusion mistakenly on your own.

Subs work fine in the pacific, especially for USA.  The AA50 subs in the atlantic are worthless, however.  This is what Cousin_Joe is trying to fix.

[Jennifer]

I don’t think having 1 destroyer be able to locate all submarines is making the submarine too weak or the destroyer too powerful.  For one, you still have to survive!  For another, you have to find the submarines before you can kill them.

Also, keep in mind that destroyers are drastically more expensive than submarines.  Where you can purchase a submarine for as little as 5 IPC, you probably have to pay 8 IPC for the destroyer.  (Assumes tech for the defender and no tech for the attacker, in other words, worst case scenario.)  That means a destroyer is 160% as expensive as a submarine.  Given how much more expensive they are, and the fact that submarines are diving for cover, not sticking around to play cat and mouse with the battleships those destroyers are running point for, and it’s quite realistic (and playable) for a solitary destroyer to be able to locate submarines for attack.

However, because I know the tear fest is about to start by some who are reading this and not responding, I will conceded that perhaps those submarines should have to be located each round and if not located, be given the ability to retreat to an adjacent, FRIENDLY sea zone or stand and fight.  (If there are no adjacent sea zones, they cannot retreat.)  This rule is in compliance with AA Classic where submarines could retreat from air units if a valid sea zone was presented.

Meanwhile, I’ll get the satisfaction of knowing there will be boats in the water that are not submarines!  The way you and Joe were going, it was soon going to be:

Submarines do CRD Damage
Submarines Attack at 3
Submarines can transport 1 infantry (there was a rule that did this for AAR, I believe LHTR or LHTR 2.0)
Submarines can never be attacked
Submarines are god

It was driving me utterly mad.  Submarines are the cowards of the sea.  They sneak up on undefended targets, line up a shot, fire it, and before confirming if it was hit, RUN AWAY!  They do not fight!  That’s exactly why Mr. Harris nerfed them.  Destroyers are the mainline unit, the fodder unit if you will.  Destroyers are supposed to do everything people are used to using submarines for.  They block movement, they transport stall the enemy, they block shore bombardments and they can picket the water to protect your fleet.

[jsp4563]

Ok, maybe i’m just dense, but it seems to me that subs right now are completely useless. They either have to dive if no DD is present, or battle it out, not even a shot before they can dive, they defend at 1, and they can’t block seazones.  What is their purpose?

VC’s…this one baffles me, the Axis can’t get to 15 without taking UK or one of the North American VC’s.  Seem’s counter intuitive, if the axis control all of Africa, Eurasia and the Pacific, you’d think it’s over.

[axis_roll]

@Emperor:

Ok, maybe i’m just dense, but it seems to me that subs right now are completely useless. They either have to dive if no DD is present, or battle it out, not even a shot before they can dive, they defend at 1, and they can’t block seazones.  What is their purpose?

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.