First off, the National Advantages are additional optional rules, not part of the core rules. They’re akin to the optional rules released by WOTC including escorts and segregated SZ 16. I don’t expect a lot of players using them, most of the play testers did not, but there was a strong movement to keep national advantages to offer uniquness to the different nations.
Per your link, let me take them one at a time:
1) National Advantages are optional, see above. If they are incorporated at all, then the method of incorporation will be decided between the two players. I suspect, all national advantages will be in play, or none. But that does not mean it couldn’t be limited to four per side, or one for each nation, or whatever the players want. It’s completely optional.
2) Paratroopers are a minor technology because they are not as powerful as the major technologies and we wanted a balance, 50% major, 50% minor. Honestly, I wanted Major, Minor and Intermediary, but I was organizing a democracy, not an autocracy.
Anyway, Paratroopers didn’t make it easier or harder to win naval battles, they negate SBR runs and they can really only help turn the tide of the battle in your favor, not change the tide of the battle like Heavy Bombers, Jet Fighters, Super Destroyers (I call them Heavy Destroyers), etc can if enacted late in the game just before a conflict.
3) Italy’s second NA is actually much broader than either of their National Objectives. They have to own pretty much everything connected to the Med instead of just a couple of territories.
As for why they got that instead of something else, it is pretty powerful if you collect for it and it brings them in line with the other major nations on the board with 3 NOs basically.
Whether or not there is a better second NA for Italy, I don’t know. If you think of a better one, I’m sure some of the testers won’t mind trying it. But since it’s an optional rule anyway, I don’t think it’s a huge deal.
4) The extra bump in the war bonds was to bring the technology up in power to be like the rest. It was deemed too weak for anyone to purposely try for it (kinda like Russia buying a battleship, happens sometimes, but not very often.) Yes, there is a lot of randomness too it, but 83% of the time you’ll be earning 1 to 5 IPC a round off it, the other 17% of the time you’ll get 7 to 12 IPC. It’s not a huge difference, but it can be nice when it lands in your favor.
5) New Technologies are acquired when you buy them. Obviously this can be run to your advantage and this does require your opponent to be much more careful about what s/he does. But it’s equally powerful for each side, therefore, it’s in balance.
Just because Japan has 12 destroyers that they upgrade to Super Destroyers just before a battle does not mean America couldn’t have done the exact same thing.
Just because Germany can turn their bomber into a heavy bomber does not mean England couldn’t do the same thing.
6) Technically speaking, everyone can build undetectable submarines. Literally speaking, players generally get technologies to undo the enemy’s technologies.
For instance, if Japan gets Heavy Bombers, America can get Radar. Radar would basically eliminate 33% of those heavy bombers from even getting a first attack.
Or let’s say Germany goes for Improved Shipyards making their submarines undetectable, England can counter with Long Range Aircraft and restore the detection value.
- I don’t know why Germany would put the Artillery in Germany and transport it to the Baltic States for an attack, but yes, you could. Wouldn’t it be smarter to put it in Poland so you don’t use up a transport spot?
8.) I agree with you on China’s NA. But since NAs are completely optional, I don’t think it’ll be huge.
Sure, we can do three games, figured one would be all you would be up for, if you would be up for any.
It’ll be AA50e with no optional rules, just core rules.
As for taking down posts, the forum doesn’t let you.
As for AA50:Jen, that already exists, it’s a pure, new set of rules. (Obviously I didn’t invent every new idea in AA50:Jen, some of them were discussed in other places and other times, most in regards to AAR; but it’s new and pure because it’s not based on someone else’s house rules.)
How about this, you edit your posts to read that the game is up to the standards of AARe and is balanced if I win 2 of three, and if I lose 2 of 3, I’ll say that you showed there was an inbalance. Though, our game history shows you winning more games than I do, so you have a distinct advantage there. As for experience advantage, there isn’t any, you have more experience with AARe than I do, and since the rules are almost a direct copy of AARe, you have the advantage there as well.
