AARHE: Phase 3: Revised NA's

Mind you, you could pair your reduction of IPC values with a reduction in the number of units on the board at the start of the game. How much you would have to remove is something you would have to play out several times in order to get the balance right. I suspect this would start moving away from “easy fix” and moving towards “might as well be a different game”.

Such is gaming.

-Midnight_Reaper

YG wanted to solve some balance issues, not just toying with 8 dices.
At least, he might get credits with tweaking subtly with balance without radical change.

Added a new American National Objective…

- 5 IPCs if the Allies control Borneo, Sumatra, Java, and Celebes.

I have labored in the past thinking of ways to fix the Research & Development phase. My ideas have ranged from ridiculously complex and elaborate to outright stupid, however, my final draft is both simple and balanced. The following house rule has been rigorously play tested, and none of the original technologies have been modified. This rule is balanced enough to bring the R&D phase into your games more often, while simple enough to get your fellow players to approve it.

Grasshopper’s Tech Rule

When an eligible nation chooses to enter the Research phase by purchasing 1 or more research dice, they will receive 1 bonus roll for free. Therefore…

_- if you buy 1 dice for $5, you will get 2 dice for a chance to roll a 6

If a 6 was rolled during the research phase, you must then choose a technology chart to roll on during the development phase. However, after you have chosen a technology chart, and before you make a development roll, you may choose one technology that you will be immune from. For example…

- America chooses to make their development roll using technology chart #2, and decides to be immune from Radar (technology #4). Therefore, if a 4 is rolled, the player for America must try again until they get a result other than 4.

This process is reset after each game round allowing players to choose different charts and immune technologies with each R&D phase.

And how is game balance threatened when both sides can do the same thing? It may upset game tradition, but I don’t see how it hurts game balance. The Brits put a large capacity IC in South africa. Hmmm…the Germans put a large capacity IC in North Africa. Now you’re both fighting somewhere else. Where’s the imbalance?

@empireman:

did they go after UK? or after another country?

At the beginning of the game I bought a sub and another destroyer and went on a submarine hunt.
Then they helped reinforcing the british after being liberated by the USA. They captured Brasil and Invaded gibraltar and North-Africa alongside the Americans. In the end they were able to invade Norway. The allies claimed victory shorty after that. I found them fun to play with.

I’m thinking of just putting them in as a complete independent force from the beginning starting with the 7 IPC’s from Canada.

Either way they were an original addition to our game without interfering with balance issues. I gave them a spot going behind the UK but maybe it’s better for them to go behind Italy’s turn. That’s something I still have to tweek :)

I like the idea of veteran infantry. I will always want the British SAS, US Marine Core, or Waffen SS fighting on my side (YES ALL OF THEM!). Also I’ve never like mechs. I think they should have just made trucks. A bit more complitcated but interesting.

@theduke:

that sounds like 2nd or 3rd edition rules (i.e. “original” axis and allies), not 1st edition. are you sure? i’m taking about the very 1st edition… an edition basically no one plays anymore.

The 1st ed was w/ unlimited IC’s.  Even ones you purchased.

Very unbalanced b/c GBR would get an IC for Persia, and move all of the India units to Sinkiang to allow US to buy the IC on the first round.  Round 2 and beyond sees $ 60+/turn worth of allied armor pouring onto the Eurasia landmass to take everything over.