Balancing the 42.2 game without the need for Bids

@barnee said in G40 House Rules Expansion TripleA Games Archive:

@Panther

It’s so we can upvote when we can’t anymore. An upvote is often used simply as a easy way to acknowledge a post without having to type

See my PM, please.

Also @VictoryFirst , please.

I find it funny.

Painstate posting this question on the premise that axis players “drag” the game out once they start losing.

Then posts that he loves Axis players that refuse to give up.  Then asks “how many do you know who do that”

As for setting a 25 turn limit, based on the length your group plays, that seems ridiculously long. Try 12 turn as suggested or have a tactical/statistical review of some kind.

I don’t know what the challenge your group is facing is -but we almost always complete in one session.  Usually we schedule a weekend.  And get two full games in. One on each day, with the backup day for the game if it runs long.

Maybe get an egg timer for each side to increase focus!

Yes Dorowar my token system works really well. It adds a mission based element to the game that probably can’t be duplicated with any other type of house rule. It is such a game changer that you don’t need to put in a bunch of other house rules. Rolling the D6 first and then choosing the chart takes more chance out of WD than you might think and everyone should give that a try no matter how they play R&D. My guess is your play group will want to adopt that for sure.

I don’t know if you’ve ever played the 1914 Tournament Rules, but they have something there that is a specified threshold for each nation that puts them in economic collapse. Perhaps an idea for you might be to determine an IPC level for each nation that must be met in order to develop weapons in lieu of NO’s. That is kind of the same thing as what I do - force a nation to be worthy of developing a weapon. That combined with your research token and some cash and you start rolling for a weapon.

Whatever you decide to do let us know how it works. Some of the best ideas are the ones we get from others here.

This is 1942.2, not Global 1942. The US starts at war.

If, instead, you allow US player to simply  built up to 2 Infantry per turn on any Allied chinese territory

That works OK, Baron – I’d prefer to the OOB rules. The problem with building infantry is that it doesn’t create an interesting choice for the US player, and if Japan kills the Flying Tiger on J1 (as it always should without an American bid or a radically intense Russian reinforcement gambit), then China never has any offensive potential no matter how much Japan under-invests there. Right, like let’s say on turn 1 I kill just Szechuan, leaving you with 4 infantry. You build 2 more infantry, now you have 6 infantry. So…so what? I’ve got something like 6 infantry, 2 artillery, and 2 fighters in the region; you don’t have any interesting counter-attacks.

With an IC, America can choose to build infantry (standard play) or something aggressive like a tank or fighter (Chinese gambit) or build nothing at all and save the IPCs for the ocean (Atlantic gambit).

I think the allies need a lot of help in Global.  Trouble is, if the bid gets too big they can put it all in one theatre and unbalance the situation on one side of the map.  So what I propose is a rule for bids that says you must place 50% of your bid on the Europe map and 50% on the Pacific map.  If the bid is an odd number, you can place 50%+1 on one side.  So for example if the bid is $17 you would have to place 8 or 9 in each side.  This rule would allow bids to get a lot larger and give the allies a fighting chance, while keeping it reasonable on each side of the world.

For the record, this is NOT an ENDORSED version of AA50e.

Jennifer, please stop posting your assemblage of rules as The Enhanced Rules for AA50..  Your rules were not created via a consortium of A&A players to fix agreed upon game playout issues nor have they been play tested.  You have even incorporated rules from other game editions for no reason!

Make up your own name for your Rules Set, do NOT used AA50e.

How about AA50HP  (HodgePodge)?

I agree.  The decreased cost of FIGs in Revised made BOMs less important than they were in Classic.

In Classic, you could add 33% to attack power for just 3 IPC (25%) increase in cost… a good deal.  In Revised the BOM is still 33% more attack power, but is now 50% more in cost, AND one less unit…  a BAD deal.