Well, as long as you admit to it being different and for those reasons, I see no issues. I am interested to see what exactly you come up with.
AA50: Strategic - A New Way to Play A&A: Anniversary Edition
-
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?
-
I have more than enough experience with the game to form my own opinions. Your opinion as to bid balance is just that, an opinion. Dont act as if its fact.
Actually I had to play a couple of AA50-41 games w/o NOs until I figured out the most optimal strat(s), but after that it would be very very difficult to beat me as allies w/o a bid. I never lost in 42 w/o NOs and w/o bids as allies.
Several years ago, before I started playing online, I also had not yet learned that AAR needs a bid to balance the game…But for decent/experienced players, my opinions are a matter of fact, as regards to the different setups of AA50, meaning +/-NOs, 41/42 scenarios. I don’t claim to know the exact amount of $bid that is needed, but you need a bid for axis in both 41 and 42 w/o NOs, and you need a bid for allies in both 41 and 42 with NOs.
-
And back to our last issue…. my problem was that if Player x does not want the 1/2 IC,
If you think that being ‘FORCED’ a 1/2 IC is a problem for the allies, perhaps you should game play test this as I just did. We bid for the axis, and the allies got the IC at a cost of $8 (Just as C_J priced it).
Granted the axis played safe in our game (did not attack Egypt, took sub, 2 ftr on sz12, sub,ftr, bb on SZ2)
But…Wow. Japan was not able to expand as they usually might. Russia threw 7 inf into manchuria R2, forcing Japan to take that out and pulling them far away from the UK india prize. Even though Japan was all over China, UK was owning south east asia.
As a result of our game play testing, we even discussed if the $8 IC was too much of an advantage for the allies. In other words, should the bid start at 10, or even 12 for the limited IC cost?
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.
Seems to me you are talking more about the bid SYSTEM instead of the limited IC Idea.
I mean if two players have a varying concept of a fair bid, of cource there will wide discrepancies in preferred bid amounts. Not sure what that has to do with the limited IC idea.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.
Said it before, and I will say it again. If you want units, go back to your bid system… and your KGF, and the tank dash to moscow, and… (insert old repeated strategies here…)
I think we’re going in circles.
Do me a favor, please. Try it out in a game or two. THEN tell me what you think.
thank you
-
-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.Yes, this would work as well . It makes it a little more straight forward
-
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?
As stated previously, all of these rules are up for debate
Canada’s inclusion as a possibility was maybe more for historical reasons than strategic
After a recent test game, I am wondering about the possibility of South Africa as a potential placement location
Unfortunately, I don’t think this would do a whole lot to slow down monster Japan (and you’re right, neither would the one in Canada)Perhaps it’s best to leave the locations as either India or Australia only.
-
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.
Excellent post
I couldn’t have said it better myself :-D
Squirecam: The idea of the AA50 Strategic ruleset is to encourage UK to be active in the Pacific/SE Asian theatres and to prevent Japan from becoming such a MONSTER
To do this, the 1/2 IC rule is introduced so UK can actually have a viable IC in one of those theatresIf you are fine with the boring, old KGF/monster Japan playout, then by all means, keep playing with your standard bid rules, and we can just agree to say that maybe AA50: Strategic is not the ruleset for you.
-
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
Thanks General Chang… A General and a Diplomat :-D
That’s all I’m asking for… just to try it out and see how it goes :-) -
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.
If you mean AA50 Strategic, it’s still undergoing some modifications
If you mean AAR: Enhanced, I know there’s a PDF floating around somewhere on the internet as well as several .txt, .html and .doc files.
-
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.
AWNIL,
Hey there, long time, no see :-D
I agree, the 1/2 price IC is not THE solution, but I do think it’s part of it
Once we get UK participating in the Pacific/SE Asia, then it opens up several more strategic possibilities.
For example, because UK is just so dominant in the Atlantic currently, German SUBs are a waste of time
This will eventually be addressedWhat we really need to increase strategy is a Directed Tech system (please see other post). That’s when strategic options will really start coming into play instead of just the randomness that exists now.
-
Hi.
I am a huge fan of AARe and I like the ideas you are working with to create AA50: strategicI agree that for a start at least we should work with 1941 and NOs.
I also agree that there is the problem with the KGF and the KRF strategies, but I think that you are missing a side of it.
From my somewhat limited experience in AA50, I have seen some other flaws:
1. Due to the AA50 rules subs seem to be ignored except as punch in attacking with fleets, and as such Germany building subs is out of the question.
2. Germany building any fleet seems pointless, especially since subs get ignored. Also because of Russia’s NO, Russia is reluctant to call for allied help. This makes it all the more important for Germany to forget UK and surge Russia.
3. China is weak, and moreover, the flying tigers almost always get killed J1
4. Techs are too random and unbalanced.
5. Victory city victory for axis seems revolved around Germany taking key Russian places.Here are some of my proposed solutions for these:
1. Convoy raids as per AARe - The reason for this idea is that it makes the nations not be able to ignore subs anymore. I especially like this solution because it solves the problem without making subs too good for their price–It doesn’t increase their fighting power at all. This combined with improved techs would allow Germany to actually build a fleet.
Also, increasing the ability of Germany to build a fleet would help solve #5 since he has the chance to take East Canada.2. Give subs a 1 shot roll @2 against unescorted transports trying to move into or through their seazone (as per AAP40). A transport shouldn’t be able to pass up a sub with impunity–that was the main use for subs in the war. Also perhaps make Super subs give subs the ability to strike and submerge (as per AARe)
3. Give Russia lend-lease in archangel–12 IPCs (number borrowed) of units per turn from allies. In addition slightly modify Russian 5-IPC NO to allow allied units in archangle only. This change would solve the problem of Russia getting quickly overrun by Germany and would allow the allies to give limited aid to Russia.
4. Change tank price to 6–This one I am mainly going on the word of others who insist that a 5 point tank is overpowered especially for Germany. Also common sense says that in a map with more territories (AA50 as opposed to AAR) units with more movement are worth more.
5. Give tank a blitz ability–If all of the opposing units are wiped out in one turn of combat, any attacking tanks in the territory may make a 1 move Combat move. The intent to do so and the target location must be given during the combat move phase. This move cannot be aborted (units may still retreat after 1 cycle of combat). Tanks can still only move 2 spaces per turn: This move cannot be done if the tank moved two spaces to participate in the combat.–I am kind of wary of this suggestion as it may be too powerful, but with the increased price of 6 for tanks I think it might deserve some looking into.
Note that the blitz does not allow a tank to do a non-combat move (as per panzerblitz in AARe)-- that would be too powerful.6. China (as posted in other thread)
a. China plays as a separate power directly after Russia. This would save China fighter and increases the strength of China since Russia can take territories to give China more units
b. Create a Burma Road rule: If China controls the Burma road on his mobilize units phase, he may place 1 artillery unit as per China’s placement rules. This represents China’s dependence on
outsiders for artillery.
c. Instead of rounding up, make China count for his units in mobilize units phase. All the other nations get their resources at the end of their turn why not China.
All of these would increase the power of China and make it have a greater presence. Also a greater presence in China should bring down the pressure on India, helping to solve the problem of the unkeepable India.
d. I think China should have a VC in its farthest west territory to give Japan the incentive to take the more-powerful China.7. I think a couple VC’s should be added to indicate the importance of certain areas. I suggest a VC in Cairo and one in Iwo Jima. The Cairo one makes it possible for the Axis to win without forcing Germany to take most of the VCs from Russia. The Iwo Jima one Counter the Cairo one as it is and axis one for an allied one and it is relatively easy for US to take compared to Cairo being relatively easy for Italy to take.
8. Give Germany and IC in Northwestern Europe–This would allow Germany to replenish his fleet once it has left the Baltic. The reason France was avoided was to stop Germany from building in the Mediterranean; that is Italy’s territory. Alternatively, decrease the price of industries.
Obviously after implementing any ideas, the game will have to be tested for fairness, but I think these ideas would improve the game.
Tell me what you think and hopefully some of these will make it into AA50: StrategicBTW: Your link for AA50: Strategic in your signature is broken.
Do I also get a long time no see? :-)
Suggested Topics
