@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?  :-)

Subs being only $6 and the modifications to make they ‘ignorable’ really changes the whole dynamics of what subs had become in AARe.  In this sense, making convoy rules for subs in AA50 is a lot more tricky, perhaps even unecessary.

There are so many possible tweaks to AA50, getting a concensus on house rules will be difficult (unfortunately).

RE: The russian NO.  I think people give this $5 NO too much attention.  There is way more strategic importance to being in russia for many of the allied units that I will sacrifice this NO often as needed.  Perhaps I am incorrect in my opinion of this NO?

I am not a huge fan of changing the price of a unit (RE: Tanks at $6).  If the game is balanced, the $5 tank will become a non-factor.

China definitely needs some changes.  I do not necessarily like the change in order of play.  There are alot of good ideas regarding fixing China.

@axis_roll:

Subs being only $6 and the modifications to make they ‘ignorable’ really changes the whole dynamics of what subs had become in AARe.  In this sense, making convoy rules for subs in AA50 is a lot more tricky, perhaps even unecessary.

I would have to disagree. Even if you take the AARe sub without convoy raids and compare it to the AA50 sub, they are very close. Here’s why:

1. Although the AA50 sub costs 1/4 less than the AARe sub, it has 1/4 less total punch. Obviously this is not totally even but this is not all that is different.
2. AARe sub can strike and submerge; AA50 one cannot.
3. AARe sub needed a detection roll from a 10 point destroyer; AA50 sub needs no roll from an 8 point destroyer.
4. The owner of the AARe sub could choose to take it as a hit in a battle vs aircraft; the AA50 sub cannot be hit by aircraft. (without destroyers)
5. AA50 transports can run right over subs, even alone; AARe transports cannot.
This list I would say is fairly even. AARe has convoy raids. Why not give them to AA50?

@axis_roll:

China definitely needs some changes.  I do not necessarily like the change in order of play.  There are alot of good ideas regarding fixing China.

Are you saying that my ideas were a lot of good ideas or that there are a whole bunch out there?
The reason I put the change in order of play is because I see it as the simplest way to save the flying tigers and giver China a little boost. It doesn’t seem too unprecedented since in OOB AA50 the Order of play changes from 1941 to 1942. There may be a better way though. Any other ideas?

I agree that getting people to agree on house rules will be hard, but I am glad it has made it this far.

@axis_roll:

I am not a huge fan of changing the price of a unit (RE: Tanks at $6).  If the game is balanced, the $5 tank will become a non-factor

But you must admit that with the increased territories of AA50, a faster moving unit (tank) becomes more valuable. And compared to the artillery it has 1 more defense, 1 more move, and it doesn’t need to pair with infantry to have an effective 3 point attack power. Is all this only worth 1 point? I am not sure. But I think a 6 point tank should at least be tried.

@Wilson2:

@axis_roll:

I am not a huge fan of changing the price of a unit (RE: Tanks at $6).  If the game is balanced, the $5 tank will become a non-factor

But you must admit that with the increased territories of AA50, a faster moving unit (tank) becomes more valuable. And compared to the artillery it has 1 more defense, 1 more move, and it doesn’t need to pair with infantry to have an effective 3 point attack power. Is all this only worth 1 point? I am not sure. But I think a 6 point tank should at least be tried.

bombers are now $12, where’s the complaint about them?

please try to keep with the minimalistic approach:  less changes are better.

Tanks are priced fine at $5

@Wilson2:

@axis_roll:

Subs being only $6 and the modifications to make they ‘ignorable’ really changes the whole dynamics of what subs had become in AARe.  In this sense, making convoy rules for subs in AA50 is a lot more tricky, perhaps even unecessary.

I would have to disagree. Even if you take the AARe sub without convoy raids and compare it to the AA50 sub, they are very close. Here’s why:

1. Although the AA50 sub costs 1/4 less than the AARe sub, it has 1/4 less total punch. Obviously this is not totally even but this is not all that is different.
2. AARe sub can strike and submerge; AA50 one cannot.
3. AARe sub needed a detection roll from a 10 point destroyer; AA50 sub needs no roll from an 8 point destroyer.
4. The owner of the AARe sub could choose to take it as a hit in a battle vs aircraft; the AA50 sub cannot be hit by aircraft. (without destroyers)
5. AA50 transports can run right over subs, even alone; AARe transports cannot.
This list I would say is fairly even. AARe has convoy raids. Why not give them to AA50?

How will you implement convoy raids?  Like AARe?  Are you adding detection rolls into the game?
Are you enabling subs to have zones of control?

My point was that you simply can not just add convoy raid capability to AA50 subs.  There are many changes to how subs work in the AA50 game.  Of course, the new proposed convoy rules would need to be typed up for us to discuss them.

When that happens, the specific issues can be identified.

@Wilson2:

@axis_roll:

China definitely needs some changes.  I do not necessarily like the change in order of play.  There are alot of good ideas regarding fixing China.

Are you saying that my ideas were a lot of good ideas or that there are a whole bunch out there?
The reason I put the change in order of play is because I see it as the simplest way to save the flying tigers and giver China a little boost. It doesn’t seem too unprecedented since in OOB AA50 the Order of play changes from 1941 to 1942. There may be a better way though. Any other ideas?

There’s a lot of China Mods out there.  I don’t have a preference for one over the other.  The mods need to work in harmony with any other rule changes implemented.

It seems to me that AA50 balance is much more difficult, especially with NOs in play.  Once one side gets an advantage, there seems to be a snow ball effect, where the advantage grows and grows.  This can be a good thing as games are much faster (usually determined by round 6-8).

Sorry, I guess I am just a bit impatient. I really would like to know what your ideas are. Otherwise I am stuck with my ideas and having them shot down and thinking now what. That last thing I want is for this to die.

As to my idea for convoy raiding:
What I meant was that destroyers automatically detect (detection roll could be added) other convoy rules stay the same–zones of influence submerge etc.

@Wilson2:

Sorry, I guess I am just a bit impatient. I really would like to know what your ideas are. Otherwise I am stuck with my ideas and having them shot down and thinking now what. That last thing I want is for this to die.

As to my idea for convoy raiding:
What I meant was that destroyers automatically detect (detection roll could be added) other convoy rules stay the same–zones of influence submerge etc.

Type up some official rules so we can discuss the pros/cons.
Please be as complete as possible.

here it is. All typed up and official - my ideas for AA50 strategic.
Blue = new clarifications
Red = new/beta stuff

Paul’s AA50 Strategic

All rules are AA50 OOB 1941 + NOs unless stated here.

BETA: The Dardanelles strait is closed to sea movement: ships in SZ 16 may only unload/bombard in Bulgaria/romania. Caucasus and Ukraine ICs may not build ships in SZ 16.  Planes may fly over the strait unrestricted.

Changes to unit costs
Destroyers now cost 7
Cruisers now cost 11

Changes to unit attributes

All battleships are equipped with AA guns (radar does not increase this)

Each Unit with ASW capabilities can only detect 1 submarine the first round of combat. Every subsequent round this number goes up one. (In other words 2 destroyers would detect 2 subs first round, 4 next etc.)  Undetected subs are treated as if there were no destroyer in the territory (for submerging, surprise strike, and plane possible targets.) Example: 3 subs attack a cruiser and a destroyer. One sub is detected the first round. The two undetected subs get surprise strike and the detected one does not. Say all of the units miss. The second round a second sub is detected. Now, only one sub gets surprise strike.

-Due to their heavier dependence on convoys for shipping, UK,US, Italy, and Japan are subject to Convoy Raids (CR). These are economic attacks, conducted by SUBs, close to enemy shipping lanes (ie. near an IC). Russian and German ICs are not subject to such attacks.
-On the UK, US, Italian, and Japan Collect Income Phases, for every Enemy SUB within 1 SZ of (ie. directly adjacent to) an IC owned by that respective country, subtract 1IPC from their collected income. For every 2 subs raiding the same IC, subtract 1 additional IPC from the player’s income (up to territory max). If a SUB became submerged during this TURN’s Conduct Combat Phase, it does not do ANY economic damage.
-Multiple SUBs may affect a single IC, with damage capped at the Territory’s IPC value. Any individual SUB, can only affect one IC/TURN, but may affect multiple ICs/ROUND. (i.e. A sub could affect a UK IC on UK’s turn and then a US IC on US’s turn)
Subs can only be forced to submerge by combat. Note that fighters alone cannot force a sub to submerge, since if fighters and subs are the last in a seazone, the battle simply ends.

BETA: UK starts with minor factories in India. Germany starts with a minor factory in France. Minor factories may only build Infantry units and may be upgraded to factories for 8 IPCs. Upgraded minor factories may be used at full capacity the turn they are upgraded.

The tech system is reworked. Here is the new tech process

Step 1: Buy Researcher Tokens

-Each Research Token costs 7 (Minor), 10 (Moderate), 15 (Major) IPCs.
-You must declare which specific technology you are rolling for
-You must buy a minimum of 2 (but no more than 4) researchers for that specific technology
-Once you have purchased a set number of researchers for a specific technology, you cannot purchase any more.

Step 2: Roll Research Dice

-If this is the first time you are rolling for a specific technology, roll one die for each researcher you have
-Success: If you roll at least one “6”, you have achieved that technology.  Discard your remaining research tokens for that technology.
-Failure: If you do not roll a “6”, your research has failed.  Keep all your researcher tokens and continue to the Purchase Units phase of the turn.

Double-Double Rule
-If you have TWO researchers, and this is the second time you are rolling for a specific technology, roll TWO dice for each researcher you have (ie. 4 dice total, this increases to 8 dice next turn, then 16, etc.)
-If you have 3 researchers, the sequence would be 3, 9, 27…
-If you have 4 researchers, the sequence would be 4, 16, 64…

Step 3: Mark Developments

-If your research was successful, place one of your national control markers over the appropriate advancement box.  Your development becomes effective immediately.
-You can initiate research on only one new technology each turn.  You can however, be rolling for more than one technology in a turn (roll newest one first), and more than one technology can come into play on a single turn.

MINOR TECHS (7IPC/researcher, ie. minimum 14IPC)
-Increased Factory Production – Errata is ignored – all factories gain 2+ production
-Super Submarines
-Improved Shipyards
-Enhanced cruisers – Your cruisers are equipped with ASW capabilities
– Your cruisers are equipped with an AA gun. This AA may be stacked with the battleship AA gun. If defending battleship and cruiser are present, roll 1 dice @2 per attacking plane instead of 2@1.

MODERATE TECHS (10IPC/researcher, ie. minimum 20IPC)
-Rockets
-Paratroopers
-Jet Fighters
-Radar
-Mechanized Infantry
-Long range mortars (Advanced Artillery) – Your artillery attack and defend @3 first cycle of combat.
                                – Your artillery have a surprise strike first cycle of combat

MAJOR TECHS (15IPC/researcher, ie. minimum 30IPC)
-Long Range Aircraft
-Heavy Bombers

China changes
China now has IPCs, It collects IPCs as other nations and starts with 7 IPCs.
China’s turn is still with US. (not combat move and combat though)
Changed: China may purchase infantry at the cost of 2 IPC each. All other units are normal price.
Changed: China NO: If the Burma Road (Yunnan, Burma) is owned by the allies, China receives 2 extra IPCs
Flying Tigers start in Sikang instead of Yunnan.