@squirecam:

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?

@Zhukov44:

@squirecam:

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.”

@Zhukov44:

@squirecam:

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.

@axis_roll:

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?

@squirecam:

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.

@squirecam:

@Zhukov44:

@squirecam:

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.

@Zhukov44:

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.

@Zhukov44:

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?

@squirecam:

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.

@squirecam:

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?

@squirecam:

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.

@squirecam:

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

Hi.
I am a huge fan of AARe and I like the ideas you are working with to create AA50: strategic

I 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: Strategic

BTW: Your link for AA50: Strategic in your signature is broken.

Do I also get a long time no see?  :-)