@general-veers
Grasshopper has India as a minor factory till turn 3 or Japan attacks it. So it’s definitely nerfed in that aspect.
He does have a video explaining everything on YouTube.
AA50: Strategic - A New Way to Play A&A: Anniversary Edition
-
I think you need different solutions for different games:
- 1941
- 1942
- 1941 with no’s and tech
- 1942 with no’s and tech
for Balance #1 is slightly pro axis, #2 is balanced, #3 is kinda in need of something because axis run all over, #4 i have no opinion either way because i havent got in enough games.
Second, to make blanket statements that after reading the forums that some British Factory is the fix for each version:
- is not any assumption i have ever read
- does not address the problems in each of the 4 versions of the game
- is only giving the allies a boost, when in some versions the allies are perfectly balanced and don’t need a boost.
Thirdly, the solution if it is not to balance the game, but to make it more historical or give more strategy, then i think the solution needs to include:
- NA’s ( no not the Revised ones rehashed but something new and vibrant)
- Fixing China ACME wall issues
- Convoy zones ( very simple)
- non-aggression pact as standard ( japan and Soviets)
- neutral forces and the chance to invade them
- optional AA50 rules as standard
- adding Mech infantry and tactical bombers to AA50 ( using the AAP50 rules)
- adding Cairo and Polesti as new VC
- VC can build one Infantry ( or perhaps they cost 4 IPC). this would help out nations with crappy navies ( Italy and Germany)
IN each case these ideas apply to each nation equally ( except #4)
-
The allies only really need 2 more units in Egypt to keep Germany from attacking on G1.
That saves 2 inf, art, tank, ftr that is normally lost on G1 (not always, but most of the time).
Without the ability to effectively diminish these UK Egypt units, Italy will be hard pressed to get their NOs (this rule change is for NO’s IL)so I based my whole discussions on the fact that no allied bid will go much higher than 8 (if that!)
This is a premise that we must agree upon, and if you don’t, then the rest of the discussion will not make any sense.I dont see this as an issue. If you place a bid (or instead get a 1/2 IC in India) then you are not placing anything in Egypt. The units would die in either case.
Or are you now saying that UK gets a bid of 6 AND the ability to buy a 1/2 IC???
If you can agree that bid levels would NEVER approach 15, let alone 10, we can further discuss.
I think that has been a starting point of discussion we never reached… the current level of a bid that is needed to ‘balance’ the game.I used 10 for simplicity’s sake. A 6 bid costs UK 15 IPC for a full IC in India, and costs “CJ” 14 (The 8+3+3). Except my UK has a full IC (and use of the 2 inf R1). Thats still a plus for the bid IMHO. A bid of 8 is in my favor 15 to 16 IPC wise. I do recognize that the 1/2 IC idea allows a 3 unit placement however.
Lets agree that the bid is 6-8. That ok?
-
The allies only really need 2 more units in Egypt to keep Germany from attacking on G1.
That saves 2 inf, art, tank, ftr that is normally lost on G1 (not always, but most of the time).
Without the ability to effectively diminish these UK Egypt units, Italy will be hard pressed to get their NOs (this rule change is for NO’s IL)so I based my whole discussions on the fact that no allied bid will go much higher than 8 (if that!)
This is a premise that we must agree upon, and if you don’t, then the rest of the discussion will not make any sense.I dont see this as an issue. If you place a bid (or instead get a 1/2 IC in India) then you are not placing anything in Egypt. The units would die in either case.
Or are you now saying that UK gets a bid of 6 AND the ability to buy a 1/2 IC???
No. I was using my gaming experience / background to show what I think is a proper bid to balance the game.
If you can agree that bid levels would NEVER approach 15, let alone 10, we can further discuss.
I think that has been a starting point of discussion we never reached… the current level of a bid that is needed to ‘balance’ the game.I used 10 for simplicity’s sake. A 6 bid costs UK 15 IPC for a full IC in India, and costs “CJ” 14 (The 8+3+3). Except my UK has a full IC (and use of the 2 inf R1). Thats still a plus for the bid IMHO. A bid of 8 is in my favor 15 to 16 IPC wise. I do recognize that the 1/2 IC idea allows a 3 unit placement however.
Lets agree that the bid is 6-8. That ok?
Yes, so a bid is free units. One time. That amount here is $6-8 IPCs.
the 1/2 IC is 8 plus 3 units (3 inf=9) = 17.
So… a bid (at this point) is giving you less units, but costs UK less as well (0)
trying to even up things, UK buys an IC turn one (15) and only gets the 2 bid units placed at India.so now we have: BID = 2 units, full IC = 15 cost to UK
Lim IC = 3 units, 17 cost to UKDifference is one more unit at an additional $2 IPC cost.
So it looks like if the bid level is as high as 6-8, then the Lim IC doesn’t look much better (or even worse if you needed to upgrade).
But if the allied bid level drops to 1 unit, does the extra 2 units immediately added on UK1’s end of turn make that much of a difference? I don’t know. I think we’re still going to try and play it out.
-
So it looks like if the bid level is as high as 6-8, then the Lim IC doesn’t look much better (or even worse if you needed to upgrade).
But if the allied bid level drops to 1 unit, does the extra 2 units immediately added on UK1’s end of turn make that much of a difference? I don’t know. I think we’re still going to try and play it out.
I agree that the main benefit of this rule is in a “low bid” situation. Instead of 1 unit, you get 3.
However, if the game is “balanced” with a simple 1 unit bid, then I believe giving the UK this option would unbalance the game in the allies favor. Its a unique advantage not replicated to the axis.
-
@Imperious:
I think you need different solutions for different games:
- 1941
- 1942
- 1941 with no’s and tech
- 1942 with no’s and tech
Maybe we need different solutions, but first and foremost, we need different amount of bids for each setting.
As for the balance, it’s pretty obvious for those who haven’t figured it out, AA50 has been out for more than a year.
41 w/o NOs allies are favored, my guess is that the bid does not need to be much higher than AAR.
42 w/o NOs, allies are favored, my guess is that the bid does not need to be much higher than AAR.
41 + NOs, axis are favored, bids should be 6-10 ipc to allies.
42 + NOs, axis are favored, bids should be 6-10 to allies, maybe higher? But not much more than 10 ipc.This is valid when “pretty” experienced players in a 1vs1 setting where both players use the tactics and strats that is most efficient, no fun games or multi-player-circus.
And tech is like Yhatzee, we don’t use bids in yhatzee do we?
-
Tech goes with NO’s If your playing NO games w/o tech, it’s pretty much not a standard version of AA50. These ideas are working together.
So it’s either no NO’s and Tech or with NO’s and Tech and not a third category of NO’s with no tech.
But yes you can’t make blanket statements that in all four games give UK a free factory in India from anything researched from reading countless ‘after action reports’
Though it was stated that these rules are not to balance the game but some idea about making it “historical”, you can’t just give a player a free factory and not consider this a balancing disruption for other players that didn’t get anything.
For balance only a bid of IPC can solve this, while adding historical or options would have to be applied to all players equally rather than a few getting the ‘goodies’.
-
@Imperious:
Tech goes with NO’s If your playing NO games w/o tech, it’s pretty much not a standard version of AA50. These ideas are working together.
So it’s either no NO’s and Tech or with NO’s and Tech and not a third category of NO’s with no tech.
I dont agree with this part. I dont like tech, not because it doesnt fit with NO’s, but because its random. Never liked it in classic, never liked it since. I always prefer to play without tech.
While I have been playing 42 w/o NO, this was generally because its easier to learn the “balance” of the game by first playing the baisc game. And being an optional rule, NO’s shouldnt be used when determining the initial balance of the game. The 42 version, no tech, no objectives, and with the escort/interceptor rule is quite balanced.
But to say you play with both tech and NO, or without both, is wrong IMHO. You can add NO’s to add variety without adding the random element of tech.
For balance only a bid of IPC can solve this, while adding historical or options would have to be applied to all players equally rather than a few getting the ‘goodies’.
This I do agree with.
-
I never play with NO’s either. They are totally contrived. Their is no magic money that just ‘poofs’ when you capture a combination of listed territories.
The techs are a bit more realistic, but most of them make no sence and also seem contrived like “heavy artillery getting 2 infantry a +1 on attack” This is not based on reality. If anything fighters should aid tanks +1 if matched ( first round).
Paratroopers are not a technology
NO’s were created to focus the attacks in historical localities because they reward this behavior. If anything was to improve variation of play, they would never be used because they focus plans on the ‘usual suspects’
The solution for what NO’s should have been used for was to tie them to national victory conditions, so that nations can win individually. This would also solve the japanese always helping Germany thing with Japan just focusing on what it needs to do to win and to hell with Germany. Neither nation was aligned in any form that they fought together or planed together. It’s all rubbish IMO.
The only thing that could work for something like NO’s was “locations of strategic importance” like oil centers that cost the owning player income if lost to the enemy ala AAE.
-
Then what you posted initially is not what you really wanted after all. Your main point was historical accuracy, and the “boring” allies to berlin and Japan v. Russia.
Yet your #1 fix is –-- place a UK IC which can go into Canada. Please tell me how this placement aids in fixing the “history” issues.
Note : it doesnt.
There is a simple “historical” fix to your initial issue. It forces your group to think outside the box. After you have played with it, you will find other ways to win, after which, you will no longer need the rule.
I’d also note you insist on NO’s, which is an admitted cause of the “axis advantage” you dont like. But AR already noted that above.
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 also think you owe Larry an apology for this.
IC in Canada is for strategic options with the other rules listed
The numbers 1,2 and 3 I list are not intended to indicate importance. I value all 3 of historical accuracy, strategic options, and variation in playout. If any, I would say I value strategic options the most. Strategically, in AA50s, Germany can play a strong Atlantic and if UK sees this, an IC in Canada could be usefulAs far as the comment, my definite apologies to Mr. Harris, as I wasn’t quite clear. I meant from a strategic standpoint. Mr. Harris himself has admitted on at least a couple of forums over the years he is not the best player at playing his games. More strategic players can see the OOTB game’s opening setup design flaw that makes a UK India/Australia IC untenable.
-
Wow! :-D
OK, some responses…
1. Standard bid for units vs. the half IC
-Agreed, a standard bid does balance the game, however, assuming most bids get placed in Egypt or the Eastern Front (for Russia), the bid does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to alter the game’s playout - you will still get monster Japan racing to Moscow vs. Allies racing to Berlin
-When I mention wanting a game with more Historical Accuracy, I specifically would like to see 2 things
A. UK being involved in either the Pacific or Asian theaters (ie. not 100% vs. Germany)
B. An actual battle of the Atlantic
-These are 2 major fronts that get ignored in an OOTB game of AA50 with optimal play
-The half IC rule helps to accomplish both because it strengthens UKs Pacific/Asian aspirations, while weakening them in the Atlantic giving Germany more of a chanceBottom Line: Standard Bid addresses Game Balance but does not address Game Playout. The Half IC addresses Game Balance and helps to create a more Historical Playout.
The Canada IC option was meant more for strategic options. If one sees Germany going Heavy Atlantic or that Japan is too much of a threat to India AND Australia on UK1, then a Canadian IC becomes an alternative. Any other potential UK IC placements would disrupt balance
-
The rules proposed are meant for the 1941 scenario with National Objectives in play
I bleieve this is the most popular option, especially since the NOs are the newly introduced item with the Anniversary EditionI should be testing the 1/2 IC rule soon in live play, and will look for some online players as well. I’ll probably look at No Tech to start. I agree with axis_roll that the 1/2 IC is clearly superior to a unit bid for India and a purchased IC UK1.
The additional benefit of the 1/2 IC is that Japan has no idea where UK will place the IC (unlike a bid). If you place a unit bid in India with plans for an IC later, Japan can move towards it on J1 and position for a strike on J2, knowing the IC is likely going there. With the 1/2 IC, UK can place on India or Aus, whichever is safer after J1.
-
Just to go a bit further with game balance, I can’t say for sure that the 1/2 IC at 8IPC will balance the game. This needs playtesting to figure out. However, using this rule, it is possbile to create a bidding system where the actual number that’s bid on, is the cost of this 1/2 IC. I posted the following over at the AAMC web site which kind of gives the gist of how this bidding system works…
Hey guys,
I posted this in the other thread, but maybe I should hve posted it here.
I would like AAMC to reconsider the bidding process for AA50 1941 scenario games:AA50 suffers from the same typical design flaws as it’s predecessors…
UK IC not viable in Pacific/Asia
UK instead goes 100% against Germany
Unopposed Japan explodes and Becomes a MONSTER!
US can try 100% vs. Japan but is outmatched, eventually needs to go to Berlin
Game boils down to typical “Can Allies get to Berlin before Japan gets to Moscow scenario”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)-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 The game becomes more about Germany getting to Moscow and Japan holding their own in the Pacific
-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 and balance thing. Thanks
-
-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.
We’re going to play this in a FTF game this weekend. I think we’ll just flip a coin for sides although your bid the IC cost idea is novel.
Maybe the bidding should be for the perceived stronger side (axis), making the I limited IC progressively cheaper.
For example:
Player A: I will be the axis and will allow the UK to buy a limited IC at a cost of $9
Player B: No, I want the axis and will allow the limited IC to cost $8
Player A: $7
Player B: OK, you can be the axis. I can buy a limited IC for UK for $7 on UK1. -
-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.
We’re going to play this in a FTF game this weekend. I think we’ll just flip a coin for sides although your bid the IC cost idea is novel.
Maybe the bidding should be for the perceived stronger side (axis), making the I limited IC progressively cheaper.
For example:
Player A: I will be the axis and will allow the UK to buy a limited IC at a cost of $9
Player B: No, I want the axis and will allow the limited IC to cost $8
Player A: $7
Player B: OK, you can be the axis. I can buy a limited IC for UK for $7 on UK1.And what if you believe (as you stated earlier) that 1 unit is a normal bid, but the IC is much better than a bid unit. Do you get to the point where UK gets an IC, but gives the axis IPC??
And dont you see the inherent problem in that ??
-
The rules proposed are meant for the 1941 scenario with National Objectives in play
I bleieve this is the most popular option, especially since the NOs are the newly introduced item with the Anniversary EditionI should be testing the 1/2 IC rule soon in live play, and will look for some online players as well. I’ll probably look at No Tech to start. I agree with axis_roll that the 1/2 IC is clearly superior to a unit bid for India and a purchased IC UK1.
The additional benefit of the 1/2 IC is that Japan has no idea where UK will place the IC (unlike a bid). If you place a unit bid in India with plans for an IC later, Japan can move towards it on J1 and position for a strike on J2, knowing the IC is likely going there. With the 1/2 IC, UK can place on India or Aus, whichever is safer after J1.
If you are relying on “surprise” to make a 1/2 IC effective, you’ve already lost. The best strategies are ones an opponent can see coming, but still isnt easy to beat. After the first “surprise” the 1/2 IC wont be, and its usefulness reduced.
You must be able to place an IC in India and defned it, even if Japan knows its coming, in order for the “fix” to be useful.
And as for Australia, a 1/2 IC (where no planes or ships can be built) is only useful for defense. You need to spend $ to upgrade it (which basically ruins the whole point of the 1/2 IC, because if you want/need a full IC, just buy one).
Answer the following:
An IC in canada does nothing for historical accuracy or playout (it just makes KGF easier). True?
A bid of 8 + full IC is cheaper than a 1/2 IC + buying 8 IPC worth of units. True?
Having units that can move r1 is an advantage. True?
Having a full IC is more useful than a 1/2 IC. True?
An India 1/2 IC doesnt do anything a bid + India IC does better. True?
-
If you want more options for strategy do this:
Give everybody ( meaning each nation) X amount to spend before each players first turn. The total of each side would be different to reflect the bid for balancing issues based on the scenario and options played.
example:scenario 1941 with full options–- Allies get 45 IPC to spend ( 15 each) Axis get 39 IPC to spend (13 each)
now the maximum variation in options are secure because all these home study plans are simply useless and people have to start thinking on their feet because with say 15 IPC you can shore up your attacks or defenses. Germany would still have a nice first turn, but they can leave themselves open for attacks because Russia can start her turn with 3 tanks and take back alot too.
Second thing is you keep the non aggression pact with Soviets and Japan as discussed earlier, so japan can just fight USA and USA must focus on Pacific.
And German subs and American subs…
Total all of them and index on a chart the allied or Japanese shipping loses. You just have to invent a chart which replaces the need to roll for each sub or consider a -5 IPC penalty against UK or USA or Japan. The more subs you buy the greater potential for loses, so it can be a viable strategy.
-
And what if you believe (as you stated earlier) that 1 unit is a normal bid, but the IC is much better than a bid unit. Do you get to the point where UK gets an IC, but gives the axis IPC??
And dont you see the inherent problem in that ??
Let me correctly understand what you are saying.
It seems that you are saying that an Axis Player would be so confident that they could give UK a free (albeit limited) IC in either India or Australia at no cost. Then what’s the next bid…. well then the allies would be getting IPCs, yes, like a normal bid.
I do not think that the axis will be giving away a FREE limited IC, let alone giving units to the allies.
Or maybe you didn’t follow my bid example correctly?
-
And what if you believe (as you stated earlier) that 1 unit is a normal bid, but the IC is much better than a bid unit. Do you get to the point where UK gets an IC, but gives the axis IPC??
And dont you see the inherent problem in that ??
Let me correctly understand what you are saying.
It seems that you are saying that an Axis Player would be so confident that they could give UK a free (albeit limited) IC in either India or Australia at no cost. Then what’s the next bid…. well then the allies would be getting IPCs, yes, like a normal bid.
I do not think that the axis will be giving away a FREE limited IC, let alone giving units to the allies.
Or maybe you didn’t follow my bid example correctly?
I was discussing the situation where 1 INF is an “equal” bid, and how a 1/2 IC can be perceived as better than that bid. Thus, by allowing the 1/2 IC (depending on how much is paid for it within limits), you are not equaling the bid, but switching the advantage from axis to allies.
In your bid example, the allies are paying less and less for an IC. But what about if you believe the IC is too much of an advantage. Do you eventually give the axis a bid to compensate??
Also, lets say I DONT want an IC. I’m not going to put one in India anyway. But I certainly dont want to give you one.
You “win” the bid. And say I can have the IC at $8. This does NOTHING for me, as I wont be playing a pacific campaign, nor do I believe in putting one in Canada. basically, you’ve prevented me from having any bid units.
What are my choices? Play without a bid? (Even if I think 8 is a proper one)? Bid less and give you the IC you want anyway (when you will just keep lowering the cost yourself) ??
Basically, what is the reasonable “value” of this IC. It is certainly not = to a 1 INF bid. Which causes a different advantage in the game. Which is what I was getting at earlier…
Now does Axis get bid units to compensate?? Do Allies get their IC but Axis get 2 INF??
Now do you see the inherent problem???
-
And what if you believe (as you stated earlier) that 1 unit is a normal bid, but the IC is much better than a bid unit. Do you get to the point where UK gets an IC, but gives the axis IPC??
And dont you see the inherent problem in that ??
Let me correctly understand what you are saying.
It seems that you are saying that an Axis Player would be so confident that they could give UK a free (albeit limited) IC in either India or Australia at no cost. Then what’s the next bid…. well then the allies would be getting IPCs, yes, like a normal bid.
I do not think that the axis will be giving away a FREE limited IC, let alone giving units to the allies.
Or maybe you didn’t follow my bid example correctly?
I was discussing the situation where 1 INF is an “equal” bid, and how a 1/2 IC can be perceived as better than that bid. Thus, by allowing the 1/2 IC (depending on how much is paid for it within limits), you are not equaling the bid, but switching the advantage from axis to allies.
In your bid example, the allies are paying less and less for an IC. But what about if you believe the IC is too much of an advantage. Do you eventually give the axis a bid to compensate??
If I am the Bidding for the axis and I think the IC is too much of an advantage, I would bid to give the IC to the allies at $20! who would take the allies at that point?
Also, lets say I DONT want an IC. I’m not going to put one in India anyway. But I certainly dont want to give you one.
Again, you miss the whole idea of the limited IC idea. yes, it HAS to go to India or Australia (or east Canada, but that option only is viable with the entire AA50 Strategic rule set)…
BUT THAT’S THE POINT! It is not JUST ABOUT BALANCE, it’s about strongly encouraging UK to fight Japan.
Of course, you can always NOT buy the IC at all as well.But I will continue with your discussion.
You “win” the bid. And say I can have the IC at $8. This does NOTHING for me, as I wont be playing a pacific campaign, nor do I believe in putting one in Canada. basically, you’ve prevented me from having any bid units.
If you don’t want the allies with an $8 IC, bid for the axis lower.
What are my choices? Play without a bid? (Even if I think 8 is a proper one)? Bid less and give you the IC you want anyway (when you will just keep lowering the cost yourself) ??
Basically, what is the reasonable “value” of this IC. It is certainly not = to a 1 INF bid. Which causes a different advantage in the game. Which is what I was getting at earlier…
I don’t think you will reach the point where NO ONE will take the allies with a free limited IC.
However, I ALSO think the bid would never get that low.So you’re inherent problem doesn’t exist.
Now does Axis get bid units to compensate?? Do Allies get their IC but Axis get 2 INF??
Now do you see the inherent problem???
I can see your thinking, but what you describe is merely a concept/theory. It doesn’t play out in the real game play situation. So I do not think a problem exists. Who would not take a free {limited} IC? Worse case is placing that in Australia, adding 2 inf for a turn or two there. Japan would probably never take it then. That alone is a $4 swing. Now is that OVER powered for the allies. I do not think so.
before you reply, I will again, continue your discussion and play along to give you another reason why the bid would never go ‘negative’. No player in their right mind would EVER give the axis a bid in 1941 with NOs. So, I guess, they would be ‘FORCED’ into taking a free IC in India/Australia.
I have a feeling the bid mechanism will determing the proper value of the limited IC, with a zero being a realistic limit.
-
I
don’t think you will reach the point where NO ONE will take the allies with a free limited IC.
However, I ALSO think the bid would never get that low.So you’re inherent problem doesn’t exist.
No, you are missing the point.
The “standard” game favors the axis (of at least 3, to your 6-8 bid). Under your system, I give up that 1-2 units for an IC I do not want. So I am forced to allow the axis to keep its advantage.
Or, I let you have a cheap IC (you bid lower and lower until you are happy taking it).
That is the inherent problem.
Suggested Topics
