Adding a bomber or fighter IMHO would be a great thing to add variety to Russia strategy and increasing its attack power in a long term.
AA50: Strategic - A New Way to Play A&A: Anniversary Edition
-
@Imperious:
I don’t think any of this matters. Nobody thinks a free UK factory is the solution to open up ‘new strategies’.
yes, sure, Cousin_Joe and I are Nobody.
Your arrogance in your matter-of-fact statements is sickening.
And you chastised me for personal attacks that YOU started (I wasn’t even going to respond to THAT silly accusation about taking things to a PERSONAL Level).
What do you call that statement?
Nice post for a mod who SHOULD know better.
-
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.
No, I think you are. Really.
It’s not JUST about making the game balanced. I do not merely want to make each side have an even chance of winning the game. A bid does that.
I want battles in the pacific. Real ones that matter. Not delaying actions while I focus with the allies on Berlin.
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).
yes, exactly. I am HAPPY to get a limited IC for NOTHING with the allies. Does that equate to a 3 bid? a 6 bid? 8? Hell, I don’t know because you can not compare Apples to Oranges. They are NOT the same thing, so you can not compare them. Once again, a limited IC <> a BID
That is the inherent problem.
I already pointed out that there is no prolem.
Look, if you don’t want to play a game where UK is has the ability to fight a real war against Japan, then DON’T PLAY WITH THIS IDEA!
I mean, why would you want to play with something you think doesn’t work? Just because you don’t buy into the UK IC as an avenue to opening a pacific war doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea for it’s main purpose:
MAINLY TO OPEN A PACIFIC WAR
You COULD play with the AA50 Strategic utilizing a bid instead of a limited IC.
-
Hi there,
I have just come to this thread from my other thread about using 13 VC.
I think that CJ has put forward an idea to bring about more variation in games and should be applauded.
Why dont we all test it out and see how it goes. I’m going to give it a go in my next game.
The only way to truly see if it works is to test it IMO :-D
-
Hello General Chang
The only way to truly see if it works is to test it IMO :-D
No truer statement could ever be made
Please report your results!
-
the main reason the half price industrial complex in india/australia is to force the allies to play in the pacific.
a more simple solution is to play to 11 victory cities.
this encourages the allies to play in the pacific.
unlike the non aggresion pact it does not outlaw history altering strategies like japan going after russia.
unlike the industrial complex in india/australia it is not a static unit/static location which means streamlined playouts = less variability and strategic options
-
Also I would like to ask CJ if he would mind consolodating all his AA enhanced rules into one thread. I would like to print them out and all the different threads makes that task difficult. Are you going to produce a PDF maybe? That would be great.
-
cousin joe, i really enjoyed your axis and allies revised enhanced rules.
i hope you create a ruleset for anniversary that is as enjoyable as aare was.
the reason that aare was so fun was there were many strategies and a wide variety of playouts.
i do not believe the half price industrial complex is the answer to more strategy.
-
@Imperious:
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.
this is a great idea that creates more variability in game playout, for me this simple rule change would add alot more enjoyment to the game. however it does not change the grand strategy of race to berlin/moscow. infact it will just encourage it as the pregame units for each nation will go to areas that help in the race.
@Imperious:
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.
this just reduces variation in strategy. it will not encourage usa to fight japan. after japan crushes china in a couple of rounds and has secured all the islands in the pacific, they can only build up for an invasion of usa.
meanwhile the usa will keep up the kill germany first strategy and only place a mass amount of ground units in west usa when japan forces it to.
japan then can only spend all its resources to try the impossible task of taking over the usa which is very cost ineffective compared to usa’s defense.
-
the only way to have an allied player focus on the pacific is to create an incentive to put units into it or a disincentive to keep units out of the pacific.
currently the incentive is to capture japan. this is less effective than putting units into europe and capturing germany.
currently the disincentive is to stop japan from taking the pacific islands. after japan’s first turn in 1941 or 1942 scenario the allied islands are australia, new zealand, and hawaii. these islands total 4ipc out of the games 178ipc. if playing with national objectives it becomes 24ipc out of 268ipc.
to create an incentive you could play wih a rule wich forces bids to go into the pacific or surrounding area(china, india, pacific, or pacific islands). this will make it easier to capture japan in relation to capturing germany.
to create a disincentive you could play to 11vcs wereby the axis can win without taking, or being on the path to taking moscow. this forces the allies to defend india, australia, or hawaii.
-
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.
While I haven’t played w/o NOs enough to test this, I’d be very surprised if this were true. The only shot Axis would have in a game without NOs would be quickly conquering Russia…but this could be prevented…No, between equals Axis would need a bid.
NOs are a tricky thing. They seem to help move the game along by encouraging confrontation and trading. On the other hand they tend to have a determinative effect on strategies that makes the game less strategically open then say Revised. So I imagine see people getting tired of them, and I can also imagine people not enjoying test games playing without them.
-
I don’t think any of this matters. Nobody thinks a free UK factory is the solution to open up ‘new strategies’.
yes, sure, Cousin_Joe and I are Nobody.
Your arrogance in your matter-of-fact statements is sickening.
And you chastised me for personal attacks that YOU started (I wasn’t even going to respond to THAT silly accusation about taking things to a PERSONAL Level).
What do you call that statement?
Nice post for a mod who SHOULD know better.
Sorry but i think i didn’t make my point more clear. What i meant was that this ‘nobody’ represents the people outside of the two of you, who seem not to like the idea. I was speaking about not the two of you, but the people posting. It’s obvious that you both feel its a fantastic idea and thats fine. I do agree that it could be taken out of context so i am sorry for that. It was not meant to be “personal”. I was also making the observation that i don’t think this idea will take hold as a solution for AA50. ok?
-
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.
While I haven’t played w/o NOs enough to test this, I’d be very surprised if this were true. The only shot Axis would have in a game without NOs would be quickly conquering Russia…but this could be prevented…No, between equals Axis would need a bid.
NOs are a tricky thing. They seem to help move the game along by encouraging confrontation and trading. On the other hand they tend to have a determinative effect on strategies that makes the game less strategically open then say Revised. So I imagine see people getting tired of them, and I can also imagine people not enjoying test games playing without them.
Have to agree with Squirecam here. 1942 is much more playable without the NOs.
Why? Because the Axis have already grown to achieve all their NO’s quite easily the first round of the game (with the exception of Japan and the India/Australia NO). Give Germany +15 EVERY turn, and they are a monster. 50+ every round. The allies are very hard pressed to keep up with that.
so i agree with Squirecams statement of:
“The 42 version, no tech, no objectives, and with the escort/interceptor rule is quite balanced.” -
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.
While I haven’t played w/o NOs enough to test this, I’d be very surprised if this were true. The only shot Axis would have in a game without NOs would be quickly conquering Russia…but this could be prevented…No, between equals Axis would need a bid.
NOs are a tricky thing. They seem to help move the game along by encouraging confrontation and trading. On the other hand they tend to have a determinative effect on strategies that makes the game less strategically open then say Revised. So I imagine see people getting tired of them, and I can also imagine people not enjoying test games playing without them.
I’ve played in a few tournaments last year, plus a number of “prep” games with some of those players. We always used 1942 and no objectives.
With the escort rule, its balanced. (you still bid for sides based upon # of rounds you expect to play and side preference). Without the escort rule, though, the allies have a clear advantage (due to allied bombing) with the lack of NO income really hurting Germany.
-
Have to agree with Squirecam here. 1942 is much more playable without the NOs.
Why? Because the Axis have already grown to achieve all their NO’s quite easily the first round of the game (with the exception of Japan and the India/Australia NO). Give Germany +15 EVERY turn, and they are a monster. 50+ every round. The allies are very hard pressed to keep up with that.
so i agree with Squirecams statement of:
“The 42 version, no tech, no objectives, and with the escort/interceptor rule is quite balanced.”Not to derail this topic too much, but isnt 1941 without NO’s also better balanced for the pacific? After all, the Japan monster cant be ramped up quickly without that extra NO income (yes Japan can still get income, but not 70+).
By this I mean, the extra NO income leads to faster/large builds, leading to faster gains, leading to bigger/faster builds, which leads to faster gains…. its a self-sustaining circle.
If we eliminate NO’s, dont we have an “easier” time managing a pacific war without resorting to 1/2 IC ideas?
And back to our last issue… my problem was that if Player x does not want the 1/2 IC, then he is forced to play allies without a bid. Essentially, only 1 side is happy with the bid, whereas a unit bid usually makes both sides happy. At some point, give anyone enough units and they will play both sides.
For the 1/2 IC, I may be forced to take a free 1/2 IC, but you will be much happier taking it at 6. So we never get to that point. You will always “win” the bid and get the IC, while I must take the IC at 7 (which I wont build) and thus I lose out on what would otherwise be a 2 unit bid.
To be fair (for bid purposes), there has got to be a way where I get my choice of units rather than getting an “opportunity” to build an IC that I wont ever build.
Does that explain it better?
-
With the escort rule, its balanced. (you still bid for sides based upon # of rounds you expect to play and side preference). Without the escort rule, though, the allies have a clear advantage (due to allied bombing) with the lack of NO income really hurting Germany.
No it is not… :roll: but ofc you might (as I did) need a few games to learn the basics, and a matter of fact is that allies is obviously favored in this setting, I guess the axis bid needed is somewhat near AAR.
-
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.
While I haven’t played w/o NOs enough to test this, I’d be very surprised if this were true. The only shot Axis would have in a game without NOs would be quickly conquering Russia…but this could be prevented…No, between equals Axis would need a bid.
NOs are a tricky thing. They seem to help move the game along by encouraging confrontation and trading. On the other hand they tend to have a determinative effect on strategies that makes the game less strategically open then say Revised. So I imagine see people getting tired of them, and I can also imagine people not enjoying test games playing without them.
I’ve played in a few tournaments last year, plus a number of “prep” games with some of those players. We always used 1942 and no objectives.
With the escort rule, its balanced. (you still bid for sides based upon # of rounds you expect to play and side preference). Without the escort rule, though, the allies have a clear advantage (due to allied bombing) with the lack of NO income really hurting Germany.
I’m confused…does Axis get a bid or not?
Axis_Roll…weren’t you claiming in another thread 42 is balanced WITH NOs? I suspect you’ve gotten some more games in and have changed your mind but I think you are overestimating Axis strength if you feel they could win this without national objectives. Japan can’t really threaten Moscow until J7-J8…that’s a long time for Western Axis to hold out.
I’ve been under the impression that interceptors favor Allies since Axis has more incentive to buy bombers…but since Germs can’t afford bombers without NO money, the interceptors would help Axis in this scenario.
If Squirecam or Axis_Roll care for a test game via TripleA I’d be down. I’m not sure what kind of bid Axis would need to even the odds but IMO Sub is probably on the right track…at least 8-9.
-
I’m confused…does Axis get a bid or not?
Axis_Roll…weren’t you claiming in another thread 42 is balanced WITH NOs? I suspect you’ve gotten some more games in and have changed your mind but I think you are overestimating Axis strength if you feel they could win this without national objectives. Japan can’t really threaten Moscow until J7-J8…that’s a long time for Western Axis to hold out.
I’ve been under the impression that interceptors favor Allies since Axis has more incentive to buy bombers…but since Germs can’t afford bombers without NO money, the interceptors would help Axis in this scenario.
If Squirecam or Axis_Roll care for a test game via TripleA I’d be down. I’m not sure what kind of bid Axis would need to even the odds… I think Sub is probably on the right track…at least 8-9.
First, lets not equate “balanced” with exactly 50/50 odds. Just like in revised, a bid is found to “balance” the game, but due to skill/dice/whatever the game win was something like 53-47, IIRC. You will never get “exactly 50/50”.
Second, you can play straight up in revised and still have a 60-40 win ratio, given dice varances, from a 0-5 bid. The bid lybia tank helped for the R1 attack, but given the variable hits per side, may not make a difference past that attack (i.e. the UK Egypt counter still succeeded).
So again, basic balance doesnt equate to exactly even balance.
Third, I think I know what AR meant. {I could be wrong though}
AR is correct, in that in 42 the Germans get their NO income easily. This income offsets the Allied bombing raids. So that additional income is helpful to “balance” that scenario, given the punishment the axis takes.
When you dont have that additional income (No objectives), you need something to somewhat deter the allied bombing campaign. That’s the escort rule.
So I can see how both are “balanced”, given 1 has the NO and 1 has the escort rule. I would agree that 42 + NO + escorts is probably more of an axis advantage than it otherwise would be.
Yes, you still have a bid unit. Usually it is 3-5 IPC. This free’s up one mainland Japan fighter or bomber (with a bid art or armor) to use that fighter/bomber in another attack to improve odds.
Once again, though, given dice variances this really may not have an effect past R1. This is why I said the game is basically balanced.
-
Ok fair enough but I think you need some testing to verify these statements (I volunteer to play Allies :8) The only time I tried a no-bid 42 game on TripleA it was a rout, with Allies having a dominant economic advantage the entire game. Axis’ best shot would probably be bidding some units to the Eastern front to try to take and hold a major base like Cauc.
Also, in AA50 with NOs, SBR and 12$ bombers favor Axis, not Allies. But I concede the situation would be different in a 42 game played without NOs. That doesn’t mean Allies should buy bombers….instead I’d focus on transports and land units to quickly choke a Germany that cannot afford to buy air.
-
Ok fair enough but I think you need some testing to verify these statements (I volunteer to play Allies :8) The only time I tried a no-bid 42 game on TripleA it was a rout, with Allies having a dominant economic advantage the entire game. Axis’ best shot would probably be bidding some units to the Eastern front to try to take and hold a major base like Cauc.
Also, in AA50 with NOs, SBR and 12$ bombers favor Axis, not Allies. But I concede the situation would be different in a 42 game played without NOs. That doesn’t mean Allies should buy bombers….instead I’d focus on transports and land units to quickly choke a Germany that cannot afford to buy air.
1. I’ve played in tournaments this way for well over a year. You should visit Gencon/Origins/Spring Gathering for some stellar FTF play.
2. I agreed that 42+NO+escorts would be more of an axis advantage.
3. If you didnt have to worry about escorts, the bombers UK/USA already have is enough to cripple Italy. Or be a PITA to Germany.
-
It is really impossible to make the same house rule apply to at least four versions of the game. First concentrate on 41 without NO’s and Tech, then 42, then finally with NO’s and tech on 41 and 42.
Obviously, the balance is different on each, but your making the same blanket assumptions as to the solution for all four.
That could be possible only if everybody got the SAME THING. at start like the idea of each nation starting with 13-15 IPC with the bid reflected by sides and players are able to change out their starting forces.
For example 1941: Germany gets 13 IPC: she buys 1 fighter, and upgrades one artillery to a tank, and 2 more infantry to artillery.
Soviets get 15 IPC: they upgrade 5 infantry to tanks ( 10 spent) and buy another tank for 5 IPC=15.
The Germans do well but didn’t prepare for the counter of so many soviet tanks and now are pushed back.
THIS OPENS ALOT OF STRATEGY AND OPTIONS MORE THAN A FIXED IC JUST FOR UK.
What is wrong with this idea?
Suggested Topics
