AA50 on Steroids!

Hey guys, since I am constantly messing with my National Objectives, testing them, trying to incorporate Feedback, I did one more adjustment which are progressive objectives:

e.g. you now get 5 IPCs for fulfilling “Lebensraum” fully, but you still get 3 IPCs for only fulfilling it partially. All other Nations but the US got these and I think this change is a lot of fun. Also some other objectives have been adjusted because they seemed to be too easy to get for certain nations.

Again, you can also download the Triple A file and copy it into “downloaded maps” and you can play it :) Just use the link at the end of this post.

ab28beb6-20bb-475f-aadb-27c23b6ad2ab-image.png

4d84b47f-cd67-4ffa-9aa8-93a6e9996fad-image.png

And a final Screenshot that shows the changes in Triple A:

2716c502-69ac-4a97-bd56-09d104bdd7b3-image.png

Use this link to download my map. Make sure to copy it into “downloaded maps”… where you store all your other games of Triple A.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/zwxtqwoz2m9jc78v58zr1/AMEjiQc4dL6Lrc8oFxrYgkM?rlkey=7z5s63t8y3wkofzwclrkq3qsc&st=ddwilwbw&dl=0

So guys, this Thread might get a bit convoluted, but I just wanted to inform whoever is reading this that I will do more test and maybe adjust the setup one final time… Since what bothers me so far is the unusual high number of Infantry in India that has to counter the unusual high number of Japanese transports. :D

I might do something that will reduce both the number of Infantry in India but also the amount transports (and maybe fighters) that Japan starts with. Because of this, Japan can expand in the East at will and because of all the fighters, it can both attack and defend wherever it wants to.

So stay tuned! I might create a new thread once all this tests and considerations come to a close for a final setup!

@Azimuth yeah, I understand the challenge, I’m a graphic designer and I was playing around with a circular map design when I stumbled upon yours. I still might finish my design as I was incorporating some map changes I found interesting. But so far I think I’ll need some blow up boxes or something to make it work at a reasonable size.

@leebear

That’ll do it - and after you have used your playing pieces for a while, you’ll see if you need to spray a new layer of matt varnish.

2-3 layers - each layer thinly sprayed - and dry 24 hours between each layer.

You units will last a lifetime:+1:

ammend the NO’s
give germany +2 Sub in 41’ and +1 sub in 42’

Now that solves your “make the atlantic more important” objective of your stratigic game

Cmdr,

TG:

In anniversary, the only way to have a submarine threat is to have your submarines scattered about.  So far it has been my experience that usually you are attacking from at least two different sea zones, this would encourage you to attack from three or more to get the wolfpack bonus.

I disagree.  One of the best reasons to buy subs is that they’re cheap and can take hits during a naval battle.  If you’re subs are scattered in different sea zones, you negate this fodder ability in a defensive battle.

Secondly, I’m all about simplicity.  Forcing the player to attack from 3 Different Sea Zones adds an unnecessary complexity to the game.

Weren’t we trying to make subs A LOT better, as you claim they are “Bogus?”

3)  Submarine captains spent long times lining up shots in the security of knowing they were not seen and had plenty of time.  They could be choosier.

Okay, you clarified it for me.

tekkyy,

well both principles (1. a ratio whatever it is 2. each destroyer roll one die) encourages players to build more destroyers
the actual numbers can be tuned

I like ratio better because it doesn’t add to the combat sequence
its also something players are used to (from placing infantry on 1 or 2 on the battle board)

Agreed.

Joe,

I would think if you’d want to fix the role of submarines, then fixes should be directed to possibly to biggest impact subs had on the war - attacking shipping and supply lines.

How about a “SBR-type” rule for subs in key sea zones?  Maybe against shipments to UK and Japan only since they were most dependent on outside resources?  Destroyers protecting these sea zones get a “AA” type role to defend so that subs have a chance to live and there is incentive to build subs?  I would think that this could open up the Atlantic and Pacific a little more for something more than just sea unit stacking.

Seconded.  +1 for an inventive idea.

@bugoo:

As far as tech goes I would propose a point system.  Assign a point value to each tech.  Purchase researchers as normal.  Roll as normal for research, but add up the total rolls and apply them toward the selected tech.  You could assign different researches to different techs, but cannot change the tech they work on once purchased.  Once point value is reached, tech is gained said researchers are lost.  For example.

As US I want heavy bombers eventually, they are worth 30 research, so on turn 1 I purchase one heavy bomber researcher.  I roll and get a 3.  Now I need 27 more research to get heavy bombers.  On turn 2 I decide I want super subs, and since that tech isn’t as powerful I only need 15 research to get them.  I purchase 2 researchers, both for the subs as I want to sink japan’s navy now.  I roll a 2 for my heavy bomber researcher, leaving 25 left, and then roll a 4 and a 5 for my subs, leaving 6 left and with any luck on turn 3 i’ll get my super subs.

This will allow you to slowly work at a tech, rush for it, and choose to go for the good but expensive techs, or take an easier, faster, tech, or all of the above.  Now all nations may buy a heavy bomber researcher turn 1, but hey there is nothing wrong with that!

Hello.  I am digging up this as the tech lovers/haters discussions have started to heat up.

I re-read your thoughts and am wondering if you ever did anything more with this idea of a tech pointing system.  Did you ever come up with point targets for each tech?

The neat thing about this is that it can be easily tweaked with out re-writing the whole process.

Or you could go one step further and adjust the targets by country too.  For example, make super subs very low (read affordable) for Russian super subs or something like that, or even harder for the wealthy countries (like extra points for USA for Long Range)

@dpdlc:

I never understood, how researching a technology would instantly upgrade your units for 0 cost. While doctrines is a change in tactical thinking, using units differently. You don’t actually have to build anything or upgrade anything, but the techniques in battle change and represent a learning experience.

In real life:

Germany focus on armored manuver warfare, to encircle their enemies.
France focused on static defenses.

US focused heavily on heavy bombers and daylight raids.
While Brittain focused on night bombers.

Russia focused on heavy preliminary artillery bombardment, for battles.
while the US had artillery available quickly to lower lever units. (“RADIO”)

Japan developed the expertise and techniques for night battles.

I think these things add a  little bit to flavor in the game.

Hi dpdlc,

What you’re describing sounds like the National Advantages available in A&A Revised.  These were nation specific advantages that reflected certain tactics, special units, or strategies used by the different A&A nations.

It’s a shame they took these out of AA50 because you are absolutely correct, when balanced appropriately, they can add tremendous flavor to a game (check out AAR: Enhanced which uses a much more balanced set of national advantages compared to AAR OOTB)