Alternate Country Combos

@Argothair said in Alternate dice rules:

It’s a hard problem. …
If you let players use LL when they really care about the battle, and force them to roll regular dice the rest of the time, then that keeps the game moving at a reasonable speed without leaving you feeling like you lost the whole game because the dice went against you in one crucial battle.

Sure, if you save one of your precious 3 LL dice chips for that key battle, you might not have such remorse.

Also, what if the game goes 15 rounds? Is 3 really enough? Perhaps start with 3 and get an additional LL battle every 3rd round?

Allot comes down to a players level of comfort when allowing randomness into the game. Some players love the gamble, the long shot, the chance that we might still have a shot to win with some luck on our side in this last ditch effort.

Other players might become dismayed when the above scenario happens to them after all their well executed plans have them at a 99% chance of winning and feel that the dice has stolen their victory.

This is a grey area, there is no right or wrong when it comes to what is the proper level of randomness in a game of A&A?

@Wolfshanze:

Have you ever done or thought about doing something about the lack of Neutral Nation rules in 1942 SE?

I feel like introducing neutral rules would make things far too gamey in some areas, like Mongolia, Sahara, and Turkey. Plus what’s the incentive to attack these regions? No IPCs, the only appeal is strategically positioning yourself, and the Soviets would be screwed because of this. Honestly I would much rather make my own board than add any extra rules for this one, at least I could then place IPC values or redesign territorial positions.

Here’s a link to some. Although these are made for triplea you can obviously play them on the board as well. You might want some custom ipc markers for the TTs with different values though. I’m in the process of revamping these so they have their own zips. You won’t need to replace the whole global zip that way.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35578.0

Here’s one that changes Russia’s NOs

Russian NOs.zip

I love the idea for a Europe 1939 game, 3 individual blocks with own specific victory conditions.

Player 1, the Axis with Germany and Italy, separate economies but move and attack together.

Player 2, the Commies, USSR aka Russia, joined with China in the global game.

Player 3, the democratic western allies USA, UK, France, separate economies but move and attack together.

@Uncrustable:

Well yours involves no less change, and is broken.

Probably better to just change tac to 10 nothing else for your friends then lol.

If I follow you it is broken because:
a TcB A3-4D4 C11 cost too high when you can buy a Fg A3 C9 only (on attack Fg is better on an IPC basis),
and a TcB A3-4D4C10 cost too low vs Fg D3 C9 (only 1 IPC higher to get D4).

And since a Fg A3D3C8 is too OP, I’m screwed. lol
Did I catch your reasoning (and the “Uncrusty” style)?

So I’m left with only one option, giving more offensive power to TcB C11 to be competitive with this unit:
Fg A3D3C9, on “1” rolled destroyed 1 plane.
TcB A3-4D4C11
1- When paired with Fg, TcB get A4.
2- Air supremacy: when no enemy’s plane then TcB get also A4, need no Fg presence.

@Uncrustable:

The main problematic aspect (as discussed previously) to look at is the effect of A2D2 fighter on carrier operation vs naval units.

I disagree, i think you look at it the wrong way or something, because i see no problem here.
Carriers reduced to 15 IPC.
1 fighter + 1 tac = 5-6 attack value, 5-6 defense value with 3 less cost
a fighter + 1 tac (OOB) = 6-7 attack value, 7 defense value 3 more cost

carrier is reduced 1 IPCs, and you only lose 1-2 combat value of the whole.
so thats 4 IPCs cheaper for carrier + fighter + tac, losing just 1-2 combat value.
If anything carriers gain a little strength (im ok with it, historically realistic to have carriers the powerhouse anyhow)

it is just OOB, you will most likely, if not always, purchase only fighters for carriers.
now you have good reason to keep combined forces.

If, big if (since OOb have the better hand actually), you everplay with this Fg, you will have to be careful about Global OOB distortion vs this possible G40e fighter:

G40e Fgs on an AB 3D@3 won’t be able to protect as much as OOB scrambled Fgs 3D@4.

When a fleet with only 1 loaded carrier unit will be attack, it will be less powerful (but also cheaper: meaning you could have more other warships) on defense than reg OOB CV+2 Fgs.
For example: 3 cruisers (C10)= 30 IPCs will be a bit more dangerous to CV G40e (15+8+10=33 IPCs) than they were vs OOB CV (A6D10C36 IPCs).
3 CA A9D9C30 vs TcB+Fg: A6D8C33 4 hits, even worse A/D with 2 Fgs: A4D6C31 4 hits.

It still works as I said, just to be cautious of the lesser A/D value for carrier when planning a naval combat.

That’s fair, would also include the caveat for Spain that Germany must be at war with the Soviet Union (since they can get a peacetime NO to start with).

Liberia should also be US-friendly, not that it would ever play a role in the game.

I’d like to know if anyone has developed an alternate setup for either AAR or AA50.  I am not looking for historical accuracy - I’m looking for a setup that produces the most exciting gameplay.
I know a lot of people would disagree with me, but I like A&A not because it’s based on WW2, but because of the gameplay and mechanics. 
So, I’m looking for a setup that would enhance gameplay.  I can’t help but think that some “exciting” setup options are sitting on the cutting-room floor simply because they are not historically accurate.
Can anyone help?
Thanks.

well kamikazi’s were hardly ever succussful so there has to be some realism in its effectiveness